[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Kashim Ahmed vs Harish Kumar on 1 April, 2026
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 01st April, 2026
+ CM(M) 146/2025 & CM APPL. 4505/2025
KASHIM AHMED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Keshav Ahuja and Ms. Shivali
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
HARISH KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
(through VC) along with respondent in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER (Oral)
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 16th December,
2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS (COMM.) No. 163/2023,
whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order XI Rule
5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') seeking directions to the
respondent/plaintiff to produce his statement of account, has been dismissed.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that
the trial Court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and
conjectures which is against the facts and law. The respondent had
deliberately concealed the prior transactions to the said date and so, the
production of bank statements of the respondent's business account is
necessary in order to bring all the true facts on record. However, by
dismissing the said application, the trial Court had deprived the petitioner of
an opportunity to present all his necessary evidence for proper adjudication of
the matter. On these grounds it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the trial
court has passed the impugned order after considering the material on record
and the application seeking directions to the respondent/plaintiff to produce
his statement of account has been moved by the petitioner only to delay the
proceedings. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed as it is
devoid of any merits.
6. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows:
"There is another application filed by the defendant u/o
11, Rule 1(3) CPC seeking directions to the plaintiff to
produce his statement of account. After conclusion of
recording of evidence in the matter, it no more lies with the
defendant to ask the plaintiff to produce one document or
the other. This application also stands dismissed."
7. A perusal of the record reflects that the plaintiff (P.W.1) has been
cross-examined at length by the petitioner. Moreover, the evidence of the
respondent as well as of the petitioner had already been concluded and the
matter is now fixed for final arguments.
8. The application seeking production of documents, having been filed
after the evidence of the plaintiff already stands concluded. This Court does
not find any merit in the application as during the cross-examination of the
plaintiff, no question was put to the plaintiff as to produce the said document
and it has been moved only to delay the final disposal of the case.
Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order and
the petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. Pending application(s),
if any, also stand disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J
APRIL 01, 2026/v/isk
