as the above extract show that despite giving several opportunities to make a
representation, the appellant was only interested in prolonging the litigation
and did not take the opportunity afforded by this court seriously. It was
observed in the judgment of this court, dated 06.07.2015 as follows:
“ 10. The order dated 17.03.2015, the relevant portion whereof
has been extracted hereon above, is clear as daylight. There
can be no ambiguity or confusion about the terms on which the
petitioner was granted one last opportunity to lead his evidence
and cross examination. Admittedly, the petitioner has not
availed the said opportunity. He did not pay in advance the
aggregate costs of Rs.50,000/- before offering himself for crossexamination.
The submission that the petitioner was under a
bonafide belief that the earlier cheque of Rs.20,000/- had been
encashed by the respondent/wife is untrue to the record. As
noticed above, the cheque of Rs.20,000/- given to the
respondent on 30.04.2013 had not been encashed on account of
the same containing unwarranted writings at the back, and by
subsequent order of 10.09.2013, the petitioner was instructed to
bring another cheque, which he failed to do. While passing the
order dated 17.03.2015, this Court was conscious of the fact
that the earlier costs of Rs.35,000/- was outstanding, and this
was so recorded in the order dated 17.03.2015. The petitioner
was also conscious of this position and, therefore, did not come
back to the court to submit that the costs are not Rs.35,000/-
but only Rs. 15,000/- - on the assumption that the earlier
cheque of Rs.20,000/- given to the respondent had been
encashed.
11. Despite this being the position, even on the date fixed for
recording his cross examination, the respondent only tendered
two cheques of Rs. 15,000/-. If he were serious about
compliance of the order he would have either brought cash or
pay order for the entire amount of Rs.50,000/-.
12. The conduct of the respondent has to be viewed in the light
of the earlier proceedings. It is seen from the earlier
proceedings that on repeated occasions, the respondent did not
appear and offer himself for cross examination, which is why
his right to lead evidence and cross examination was closed.
Thus, this Court, while indulging in the petitioner on
17.03.2015 observed that on merits the petitioner was not
deserving of relief, i.e. of interference with the orders dated
13.05.2014, 06.10.2014 and 21.01.2015. It is clear that the
petitioner is only seeking to drag the proceedings and to
prevent the conclusion of the proceedings before the Family
Court. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant any further
indulgence and I find no error of jurisdiction in the impugned
order.”
17. In these circumstances it is not for the appellant to urge that he was
not given an opportunity to represent himself adequately. As is apparent
from the record, the appellant defaulted time and again with payment ofamount, which was the condition precedent for his appearance. This Court
by its order dated 17.03.2015 felt it proper in the interest of justice to allow
the appellant a chance of cross-examination despite there being no merit in
his arguments. The appellant chose to fritter away the opportunity given to
him through his callous attitude and is estopped through his conduct from
raising such ground in appeal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 03.08.2016
MAT. APP. (FC) 150/2015
GOPAL KRISHAN DUA
V
RAJNI DUA AND ANOTHER
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC) 725 DEL
Pronounced on: 03.08.2016
MAT. APP. (FC) 150/2015
GOPAL KRISHAN DUA
V
RAJNI DUA AND ANOTHER
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC) 725 DEL
