NEENA KHANNA vs WENGER & CO & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11th August, 2025 + CM(M) 1396/2018 NEENA KHANNA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shalini Kapoor with Mr. Dhruv Chawla, Ms. Divyanshi Saxena, Mr. Udit Bhatiani, Ms. Aadya Sinha, Advocates. versus WENGER & CO & ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naresh Gupta, Mr. Rachit Gumber, Advocates. Mr. Swastik Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) CM(M) 1396/2018& CM APPL. 49111/2025 1. Petitioner seeks early hearing of the matter. 2. The Court has gone through the impugned order dated 01.10.2018 whereby the request of plaintiff/petitioner seeking to lead secondary evidence was disallowed, primarily, for the reason that the plaintiff herself had, at earlier point of time, during the pendency of present suit only, had sought exemption from filing original documents, which was allowed by this Court, when the suit was pending before this Court on its original side. Thereafter also, she moved an application seeking to place on record the document in question i.e. original Will of Sh. R.S. Tandon. 3. However, during admission/denial of documents, the Will in question was found to be a photocopy and not the original one and it was in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1396/2018 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:44:40 abovesaid backdrop of the facts that the plaintiff sought permission to lead secondary evidence. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner strongly relies upon Prem Chandra Jain and Others. vs Sri Ram and Others.: 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3202 and submits that learned Trial Court should have, at least, granted petitioner a due opportunity of leading evidence, with respect to the controversy in question and her application shou