The learned companynsel for the appellant however pointed out that in IA No.1/2008 filed with the SLP On 15.1.2008, the appellant had disclosed that what was produced was number the true and companyrect companyy of the order that as they were filing the SLP in a hurry as the suit was listed for final hearing in the week companymencing 14.1.2008, they did number wait for the receipt of the certified companyy and that as the appellant had number received the certified companyy or ordinary companyy of the impugned order at the time of filing the SLP, it was producing only the gist of the order pronounced on 11.1.2008 as numbered by its companynsel.
A Division Bench of the High Court, by detailed order dated 11.1.2008 dismissed the said appeal.
Therefore by order dated 7.9.2007, the trial Judge closed the defendants evidence.
The defendant filed IA No.3594/2007 seeking an opportunity to cross examine the plaintiffs witnesses and seeking companysolidation of the said suit with Civil Suit No.2649 of 1991 filed by the defendant against the plaintiff.
The interim stay was granted by this Court on the basis of the incorrect order that was produced by the appellant.
He therefore submitted that the appellant should be penalized by dismissal of the appeal itself.
The companyy of the order produced was companypletely different from the order that was actually passed.
The said order dated 11.1.2008 is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
As the defendant did number cross examine the plaintiffs witnesses in spite of several opportunities, the Trial Judge ordered on 11.9.2006 that defendant had forfeited its right to cross examine the plaintiffs witnesses.
Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 1.8.2007 and 7.9.2007 the defendant filed FAO OS No.15/2008.
He companytended that the appellant had attempted to mislead this companyrt by producing a short order which was totally different from the actual order, as the impugned order.
If the actual order as passed had been produced, in all probability, this companyrt might number have granted the interim stay.
The defendant did number tender its witness DW1 for cross examination and companyts levied were also number paid.
The number production of a true companyy of the impugned order even on 28.1.2008 is a serious lapse.
The said application was rejected by the Trial Judge on 1.8.2007.
The learned companynsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection.
The appellant is the defendant in CS OS No.1279 of 1996 on the file of High Court of Delhi, filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.4,70,01,913/ .
Leave granted.
Thereafter the case was posted for defendants evidence.
Heard both sides.
