[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sunita Ghosh vs Prem Chand Chauhan & Ors on 11 February, 2026
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th February, 2026
+ CM(M) 296/2026
SUNITA GHOSH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishabh Bansal, DHCLSC with
Mr. Vinayak Goyal, Advocate.
versus
PREM CHAND CHAUHAN & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikas Manchanda, Mr. Saksham
Manchanda, Mr. Saad Iqbal, Ms. Riya
Nagar and Ms. Vaishali, Advocates
for R-1.
Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Standing
Counsel for MCD/R-3.
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. 9347/2026 (for early hearing)
2. This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking early hearing of the present
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have appeared on
advance notice and accepted notice.
4. The present petition is taken up for hearing today with the consent of
the learned counsels.
CM(M) 296/2026
5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the order dated 15th December,
2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS SCJ No. 1278/2018, whereby
the evidence of the petitioner/defendant No.1 has been closed.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is required
to examine two more witnesses, who are yet to be summoned. The evidence
of petitioner/DW-1 was concluded on 20th November, 2025 and thereafter no
sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to complete her evidence
and it caused grave prejudice to the case of the petitioner.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 has
argued that the petitioner was granted more than sufficient opportunities to
lead her evidence and the petition has been moved only to delay the disposal
of the case.
9. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:
"...Again, adjournment sought on behalf of defendant no. 1
for DE and after being specifically asked, the proxy counsel
appearing on behalf of defendant no. 1 has stated that as per the
instructions received from the main counsel, the witness at serial
no. 2 and 3 in the list of witness are to be examined. On being
further inquired the counsel has failed to satisfy the court about
the relevancy and purpose of the examination of the said
witnesses.
Perusal of file further provides that matter is at the stage of
DE for last more than three years and defendant no. 1/DW-1 was
examined in chief on 03.11.2022 and thereafter several
adjournments were sought on behalf of defendant no. 1 only and
again on several dates defendant no. 1 had not appeared before
the court and accordingly vide order dated 22.01.2025, DW-1 was
granted last opportunity for her evidence subject to imposition of
cost. Even thereafter again adjournment was sought on behalf of
defendant no. 1 on 22.04.2025 and again adjournment was sought
on 10.10.2025. Vide last order dated 20.11.2025, defendant no. 1
was granted last opportunity for her remaining evidence, if any
and despite that, neither affidavit of any other witness has been
filed nor any application was moved for summoning of any
witness. Even today, the counsel appearing on behalf of defendant
no. 1 has failed to satisfy the court the relevancy and purpose of
examination of other witnesses. The present matter is more than
07 years old.
Accordingly, in the given circumstances, DE on behalf of
defendant no. 1 is hereby closed on court order.
Now, file be put up on 16.01.2026 at 11:30 Am for final
arguments."
10. The matter was fixed for the petitioner's evidence for the first time on
03rd November, 2022, on which date the examination-in-chief of the
petitioner/DW-1 was recorded. Thereafter, several adjournments were sought
by the petitioner. It was only on 22nd January, 2025, after a period of about
two (2) years, that the cross-examination of the petitioner/DW-1 was
completed. During this period, the petitioner neither took any steps to file the
affidavits of the remaining witnesses nor initiated the process for summoning
them. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that sufficient opportunities were
granted to the petitioner to complete her evidence; however, she failed to
avail the same even after the last opportunity was granted.
11. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, as the same is a reasoned
order passed in accordance with law to avoid unnecessary delay in the
disposal of the case. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as being
devoid of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
12. The next date already fixed i.e., 01st April, 2026 stands cancelled.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2026/nd/isk
