$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Date of decision: 31 July, 2024
+ CM(M) 3055/2024 & CM APPL. 42836-42837/2024
SHRI SUKHMAL JAIN
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Bansal with Mr. S. Alam,
Mr. Sunil Singh, Mr. Neeraj Jha and
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advcoates.
versus
SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN JAIN & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 01.05.2023 whereby his
opportunity to lead evidence has been closed and resultantly, the matter has
been
fixed for defendants’ evidence.
2. Learned counsel or the defendants (respondents herein) also appears on
advance notice.
3. The attention of this Court has been drawn to various subsequent orders
passed by the learned Trial Court after the above order dated 01.05.2023 and
it is very clear that even subsequent to the aforesaid order, whereby the right
to lead evidence by the plaintiff had been closed by the learned Trial Court,
the plaintiff did not take any immediate remedial step and rather surrendered
himself to the aforesaid order. He kept on appearing before the learned Trial
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 3055/2024 1
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
15:23:42
Court and was also given opportunity to file written submissions before the
learned Trial Court.
4. It is also apprised that the arguments have already been heard by the
learned Trial Court and learned Trial Court has fixed up the matter for
pronouncement of order today itself at 2:00 p.m.
5. It has not been explained as to why it took so long for the petitioner to
move the petition before this Court. He could have very easily filed the same
immediately after the impugned order was passed on 01.05.2023. It could
have also moved an application before the same Court seeking recall of such
order but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, no step in the aforesaid
direction was even contemplated.
6. The various subsequent orders, as shown by the learned counsel for
respondent during the proceedings of the case, indicate that the plaintiff kept
on appearing before the learned Trial Court, totally unperturbed by the fact
that his right had been closed, suggesting that he has no grievance with
respect to such closure of his right of leading evidence.
7. Though, the fate of the suit looks inevitable, keeping in mind the facts
disclosed before this Court, this Court does not find it to be a fit case where it
should invoke its power under Article 227 of Constitution of India, more so,
when the case is already fixed for pronouncement today itself.
8. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
sw
JULY 31, 2024/
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 3055/2024 2
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
15:23:42