High CourtsSingle Bench

Shri Gian Chand Ralhan vs Shri Gurvinder Singh Bakshi

Delhi High Court · Decided on 25 March 2026 · Citation: (2026) 03 DEL CK 0587

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 228
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 626 Of 2026, Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 18900, 18901 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 422 words

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J

1.

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

2.

The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/ defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 17th March, 2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in case bearing No. CS DJ 357/2020, whereby the defence evidence of the petitioner has been closed.

3.

Learned  Counsel  for  the  respondent  appeared  on  advance  notice  and accepts notice.

4.

With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. Record perused.

5.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed his affidavit by way of evidence. However, owing to his advanced age of about 96 years and his medical condition, he was unable to appear before the Trial Court for examination. It is further submitted that the petitioner has duly authorized his son, namely Mr. Sanjeet Ralhan, to depose on his behalf as his attorney. The affidavit of evidence of the said attorney has also been filed and a copy thereof has been supplied to the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioner has only to examine the said attorney.

6.

Per Contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that sufficient opportunities  have already been granted by the  Trial Court to the petitioner to lead evidence. However, despite such opportunities, no evidence was led. It is further argued that the present petition has been filed only with a view to delay the proceedings and is liable to be dismissed.

7.

Keeping  in  view  the facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  particularly considering that the petitioner is about 96 years of age and wants to examine his son as his attorney in evidence, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead  his  evidence,  as  the  respondents  can  be  compensated  by  way  of  costs. Accordingly, one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence by way of examination of Mr. Sanjeet Ralhan, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the respondents.

8.

It shall be open to the learned Trial Court to record the evidence of the petitioner  on  the  date  already  fixed  or  on  any  other  date  convenient  to  the learned Trial Court.

9.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in above-terms. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of.