Mukesh Trehan vs District Manager, M.P. State Agro ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2221 Del

Delhi High Court

Mukesh Trehan vs District Manager, M.P. State Agro ... on 15 April, 2026

                          $~77
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                                       Date of Decision: 15thApril,2026
                          +     CM(M) 824/2026
                                MUKESH TREHAN                                         .....Petitioner
                                            Through:               Ms. Srishti Talwar, Advocate.

                                                     versus

                                DISTRICT MANAGER, M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIAL
                                DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.         .....Respondent
                                             Through: None.

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
                                                          ORDER (Oral)

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 24319/2026 (for delay)

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in re-filing of the present petition.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 11days in re-filing the present petition is condoned and the application is disposed of. CM APPL. 24318/2026 (for exemption)

4. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 824/2026& CM APPL. 24317/2026

5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the orders dated 02nd December,

2025 and 24th January, 2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS SCJ 1908/2023, whereby costs of Rs. 50,000/- were imposed upon the petitioner/plaintiff, and the application seeking waiver of the said costs was dismissed respectively.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- on account of non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial court is unreasonable. The respondent has not been yet served in the suit which is for the recovery of Rs.92,614/-.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner could not appear in trial court on account of her ill-health. However, in case the trial court requires appearance of the petitioner, the petitioner shall appear in person before the trial court as and when required.

8. Keeping in view the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts of the case, the cost imposed vide the impugned order dated 02nd December, 2025 is reduced to Rs.5,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner in Avlamban Fund Scheme 2024, as directed by the trial court, within a period of one week from today.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above-stated terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J APRIL 15, 2026/v/ik