Parul Bawa vs Sh. Mohit Gandhi

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

The  present  petition  has  been  filed  on  behalf  of  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 Civil suit no. 224/2020, whereby the right of the petitioner/defendant no. 3 to lead defence evidence has been closed.

Learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiff appeared on advance notice.

The matter is heard with the consent of learned Counsels for the parties. Record Perused.

Learned Counsel for the respondents has also placed on record the order sheets of the Trial Court, which are taken on record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner be given  one  more  opportunity  to  lead  her  evidence,  failing  which  she  would suffer grave prejudice. It is stated that the Trial Court has closed the petitioner’s evidence without affording adequate opportunities.

Per Contra, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the petitioner to lead her evidence,  despite  which  she  failed  to  do  so.  The  present  petition  has  been moved only to delay the trial and it be dismissed.

A perusal of the order sheets of the Trial Court shows that the matter was fixed for the  petitioner’s evidence for the first time  on 03rd February, 2026 and thereafter on 22nd April, 2025, 19th May, 2025, 01st September, 2025, 13th October, 2025, 02nd December, 2025 and 19th January, 2026. Vide the impugned  order dated  12th February, 2026,  the  right of  the petitioner  to lead evidence was closed.

From the record, it is evident that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead her evidence; however, the petitioner failed to avail the  same  and  which  has  resulted  in  the  delay  of  the  trial.  A  perusal  of  the impugned order shows that the Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the opportunities granted  to  the  petitioner  to  lead  her  evidence.  Accordingly,  this  Court  does not find any infirmity in  the impugned  order and the  same is  upheld.  The present petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merits. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.