[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Kapil vs Pawan Kumar on 12 February, 2026
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th February, 2026
+ CM(M) 303/2026, CM APPL. 8196/2026, CM APPL. 8197/2026 &
CM APPL. 8198/2026
KAPIL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Vashishtha and Ms.
Sakshi Panwar, Advocates.
versus
PAWAN KUMAR .....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.
2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 02nd April, 2025 passed by the
learned Trial Court in CS DJ ADJ 950/2018, whereby the application filed by
the petitioner/defendant for summoning a witness, namely-Randhir has been
dismissed and evidence of the petitioner was closed.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the DW-Randhir is a
material witness of the case and that if he is not examined, it would cause
grave prejudice to the petitioner's case.
5. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 02nd April, 2025
reads as follows:
"Ld. counsel for defendant has prayed for dispoal of
application for summoning of witness i.e. Sh. Randhir.
The application is strongly opposed by Ld. counsel for
plaintiff.
The perusal of record reveals that the issues in the present
case were framed vide order dated 02.05.2019. The parties
were required to file list of witnesses within the period of 15
days from the date of said order.
It is an admitted fact that the name of DW Sh. Randhir was
not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed on behalf of
defendant. The defendant alongwith the application for
summoning of witnesses has filed the additional list of
witnesses. The leave of this court is not sought to file the
additional list of witnesses. Hence, the additional list of
witnesses filed on behalf of defendant is rejected. In view of
rejection of additional list of witnesses, the present
application for summoning of witness Sh. Randhir has also
become infructuous. Hence dismissed.
No DW present. Last and final opportunity for DE was
granted. Therefore, DE is closed."
6. A perusal of the record shows that last opportunity was granted to the
petitioner to lead his evidence on 02nd April, 2025 and the application to
summon the witness has been pressed only on that date. Issues in the present
case were framed on 02nd May, 2019 and the list of witnesses was required to
be filed within 15 days from the date of the said order. The name of the
witness which was sought to be examined has not been named in the list of
witnesses filed on behalf of the petitioner. The present petition has also been
filed after about ten months from the date of the impugned order. From these
facts and circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner wants only to delay
the proceedings in the Trial Court. As the Trial Court has passed a reasoned
order in accordance with law to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceedings,
so, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
and is upheld. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as being devoid of any
merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2026/v/abk
