[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Aftab Ahmad & Anr vs Mirza Aziz Beg (Since Deceased) Through ... on 12 February, 2026
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th February, 2026
+ CM(M) 355/2026
AFTAB AHMAD & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum and Mohd. Anis
Ur Rehman, Advocates.
versus
MIRZA AZIZ BEG (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL
HEIRS MIRZA ARIF BEG AND ORS. .....Respondents
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. 9739/2026 & CM APPL. 9740/2026 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.
CM(M) 355/2026 & CM APPL. 9738/2026 (for interim relief)
3. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the order dated 25th September, 2025
passed by the learned Trial Court in RC/ARC/371/2018, whereby the
application filed by the petitioners/respondents for recalling the order dated
25th April, 2025 and seeking permission to lead evidence, was dismissed.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners could
not lead evidence on 25th April 2025, as their previous counsel has expired
and affidavit of evidence could not be filed due to non-availability of the
complete certified copies of the record to the new counsel. As the non-filing
of affidavit in evidence and non-examination of the witnesses is neither
intentional nor deliberate, so the opportunity be granted to the petitioners to
lead their evidence.
6. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 25th September, 2025
reads as follows:
"Perusal of record shows that vide order dated
26.10.2023 leave to defend application was treated as WS
and only one opportunity was granted to respondent to lead
respondent evidence. However, subsequently from
21.12.2023 to 21.11.2024 the respondent did not lead any
evidence despite availing repeated opportunities and
imposition of costs, and despite the fact that Ld. Counsel for
the respondent was present on several dates. Therefore, it is
clear that sufficient opportunities to lead respondent
evidence were already availed by the respondent even before
the death of the previous counsel.
Even from 16.01.2024, when the new Counsel was
engaged, till 25.04.2025 the respondent again did not lead
any evidence.
It is thus clear from the conduct of the respondent that
intentionally and deliberately he has not been taking steps to
lead evidence. Therefore, recalling order dated 25.04.2025
and reopening the evidence would cause injustice to the
petitioner who has been suffering due to unnecessary delay
caused by the respondent.
Accordingly, no grounds are made out to allow the present
application. The present application is accordingly disposed
of as dismissed for being without merits."
7. A perusal of the record shows that as the sufficient opportunities were
granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence, so their evidence has been
rightly closed by the Trial Court to avoid delay in the disposal of the matter.
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/nd/abk
