[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S Shree Kailash Prem Furniture vs Shagun Furniture on 24 March, 2026
$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th March, 2026
+ CM(M) 611/2026, CM APPL. 18558/2026 & CM APPL. 18559/2026
M/S SHREE KAILASH PREM FURNITURE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sazid S.R.Shah, Mr. Syed Bashar
Afzal, Mr. Qadir Javed and Mr. Akash
Saini, Advocates.
versus
SHAGUN FURNITURE .....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 by the petitioner under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 12th February,
2026, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS SCJ 1278/2021, whereby the
application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recalling of order dated 21st January, 2025, has
been dismissed.
3. Vide Order dated 21st January, 2025 the right of the
petitioner/defendants to lead defence evidence has been closed.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Learned counsel for 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 on record. The evidence of the petitioner has been closed
without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. It
is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in absence
of such an opportunity to lead evidence, grave prejudice would be caused to
the case of the petitioner.
6. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner has not challenged the order
dated 21st January, 2025 in this petition. The order dated 21st January, 2025
reads as follows:
"Matter is pending at the stage of DE for the last one
year.
Neither of the defendants have led any evidence so far
and even today an adjournment is sought.
Considering the conduct of the defendants, no leniency
is warranted.
Accordingly, the right of the defendants to lead
Defence Evidence stands closed."
7. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 12th February, 2026 is
reproduced as follows:
"Vide this application, the defendant No.1 is seeking
recalling of order dated 21.01.2025 passed by this court
followed by liberty to lead defence evidence.
It is submitted by Ld. counsel for defendant No.1 that the
defendant no. 1 had filed his evidence by way of affidavit on
03.07.2024 itself, however, the said fact was not recorded in the
ordersheet and consequently on 21.01.2025, his opportunity to
lead defence evidence was closed. It is further submitted by Ld.
counsel for defendant that the order dated 21.01.2025 may be
recalled and he may be granted an opportunity to lead DE.
Per-contra, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that
the opportunity of the defendant to lead DE was closed after
giving several opportunities, therefore, no further opportunity
may be granted to the defendant to lead DE. It is further
submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that the present
application has also been filed by the defendant after the expiry
of 07 months from the date of the order, therefore, it is filed only
with the intent to delay the trial and is an abuse of the process of
law.
Perusal of the record reveals that the matter was fixed for
DE vide order dated 11.03.2024 and the defendant was directed
to file the evidence by way of affidavit along with list of
witnesses within 15 days. Thereafter, on 25.04.2024, the
defendant No.1 sought time for complying with order dated
11.03.2024. Subsequently, on 09.05.2024, again adjournment
was sought on behalf of defendant No.1 for leading DE and no
evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of defendant
No.1. Thereafter, on 21.01.2025, yet again a request for
adjournment was made on behalf of defendant No.1, however,
considering the conduct of the defendant No.1, Ld. Predecessor
of this court closed the opportunity to lead DE and matter was
fixed for final arguments. On 17.07.2025, final arguments were
heard by this court and matter was adjourned for
clarifications/orders to 23.07.2025 however, on the said date at
the request of defendants matter was again fixed for final
arguments for 11.09.2025, on which date the present
application came to be filed.
It is therefore, apparent from the aforesaid facts that the
defendant has filed the instant application after expiry of more
than seven months from the date on which his opportunity to
lead DE was closed. In the present application, the defendant
has only mentioned the fact of filing of evidence by way of
affidavit online before this court on 03.07.2024, however, no
explanation has been tendered for nonappearance of defendant
No.1 for the purpose of leading DE between 03.07.2024 and
21.01.2025. Even if the submission of Ld. counsel for defendant
No.1 regarding the filing of the affidavit on 03.07.2024 is taken
on its face value, the blatant neglect in non-filing the physical
copy of evidence by way of affidavit on record compounded by
nonappearance of defendant for the purpose of leading DE
between 03.07.2024 and 21.01.2025 is rather inexcusable,
more so when final arguments have already been advanced by
the parties. Moreover, no explanation has come forth regarding
the delay of seven months in filing of the instant application
despite ample time being available with the defendant in as
much as order sought to be recalled was passed on 21.01.2025
whereas the present application came to be filed as late as on
11.09.2025.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court is
of the view that the instant application has been filed only with
the intent of delaying the trial which is also corroborated by the
previous conduct of the defendant No.1. This court is
accordingly not inclined to grant any liberty to defendant No.1
for leading DE in the present case, especially in the light of the
fact the matter has been at the stage of final arguments since
more than a year and a half.
Accordingly, the application u/s 151 of CPC filed on
behalf of the defendant No.1 is hereby ordered to be dismissed
as being vexatious and frivolous, with cost of Rs. 2000/- to be
paid to the plaintiff on the NDOH.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
Since, final arguments were not heard by the undersigned
in the present case the same shall be heard afresh on the
NDOH."
8. A perusal of the record shows that the trial court has given sufficient
opportunities to the petitioner in order to lead his evidence. However, the
petitioner without any sufficient reasons continued to seek adjournments
which has resulted in the delay of the trial. The trial court has rightly closed
the evidence of the petitioner after considering the conduct of the petitioner
and after giving him sufficient opportunities. The trial court has passed a
well-reasoned order in accordance with law. Accordingly, this court does not
find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The petition
is dismissed as being devoid of any merits. Pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J
MARCH 24, 2026/v/isk
