High CourtsSingle Bench

Smt Jyoti & Anr. vs Sh Hitesh Bajaj

Delhi High Court · Decided on 6 May 2026 · Citation: (2026) 05 DEL CK 0073

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1036 Of 2026, Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 30194, 30195 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

7 paragraphs · 319 words

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1.

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

2.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the impugned order dated 25th March, 2025, 08th July, 2025 and 07th January, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS SCJ No. 612536/2016, whereby the learned Trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs.

3.

Heard. Record perused.

4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures, which is against the facts and law. It is further submitted that, in case the petitioners are not allowed to examine the witnesses, grave prejudice shall be caused to the case of the petitioners. It is prayed that opportunity be granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence.

5.

A perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 23rd October, 2024, the evidence of the petitioners was closed. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for recall of the said order, which was allowed vide order dated 25th March, 2025, subject to payment of cost and a last opportunity was granted to the petitioners to examine their witnesses. Further, vide order dated 08th July, 2025, the PE was again closed as the petitioner did not lead their evidence. The matter is now fixed for final arguments before the learned Trial Court.

6.

It is evident from the record that the petitioners were granted sufficient opportunities to lead their evidence but have failed to avail any of these opportunities. It shows the conduct of the petitioners which has resulted in the delay of the trial. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order in closing the evidence of the petitioners. The present petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.