Allowed¶26

Balajee Metal Industries v. Bir Bhan Jindal

Delhi HC3 Jul 2025CM(M)/1122/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CM(M) 1122/2025, Balajee Metal Industries v. Bir Bhan Jindal, Delhi High Court, Justice Manoj Jain, decided 03.07.2025 - issuance of summons by Trial Court to third permitted defence witness (Mr. Nitin Garg) in a commercial suit after Local Commissioner stage; defendant given only one opportunity; final arguments deferred; pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Request made to the learned Trial Court to issue a summon to the third witness (Mr. Nitin Garg); petitioner confined to one opportunity with further steps dependent on the process report; hearing of final arguments to be suitably deferred; parties directed to appear before the learned Trial Court the following day (tomorrow itself); pending applications disposed of. ¶26

Balajee Metal Industries Vs Bir Bhan Jindal — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court ought to issue summons to the third permitted witness, Mr. Nitin Garg, whom the defendant-petitioner could not produce as he was allegedly not under his control. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The present petition is allowed, with a request to the learned Trial Court to issue a summon in respect of the abovesaid witness (Mr. Nitin Garg).

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The hearing of final argument before the learned Trial Court may also be suitably deferred.

¶26

Key takeaways

The petitioner is entitled to only one opportunity in this regard, and any further decision with respect to the witness rests with the learned Trial Court in terms of the process report to be received by it.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J., oral order dated 03.07.2025): While defending a commercial suit, the petitioner-defendant had been permitted to examine three witnesses; two were produced and examined before the learned Local Commissioner. The third witness, Mr. Nitin Garg - stated by the defendant to be an employee of the plaintiff (a contention the respondent's counsel disputed) and hence beyond his control - could not be produced, and the learned Trial Court, by order dated 08.05.2025, declined the application seeking issuance of summons to him. Allowing petition CM(M) 1122/2025, the High Court requested the learned Trial Court to issue a summon for the said witness, clarified that the petitioner would get only one opportunity, with any further decision resting on the process report received by the Trial Court, and held that the hearing of final arguments may be suitably deferred. Parties were to appear before the learned Trial Court the next day; pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 03^rd July, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1122/2025, CM APPL. 38073/2025 & CM APPL. 38074/2025

¶5

BALAJEE METAL INDUSTRIES

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. Hari Kishan with Mr. Akarsh Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

versus

¶9

BIR BHAN JINDAL

¶10

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sachin Agarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶11

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶12

Petitioner is defending a suit which is commercial in nature.

¶13

His sole grievance is with respect to the fact that though the Court had allowed him to examine three witnesses but at the same time, it refused to issue summons them.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant before the learned Trial Court) submits that out of such three witnesses, he was able to produce two witnesses before the learned Local Commissioner and two such witnesses have already been examined.

¶15

He, however, submits that with respect to the third witness i.e. Mr. Nitin Garg, he could not produce him as he was not under his control. He submits that Mr. Garg is rather employee of the plaintiff and, therefore, he is not going to appear unless there is issuance of summons by the Court.

¶16

It is quite evident from the order dated 08.05.2025 that when the defendant had moved an application before the learned Trial Court seeking

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

CM(M) 1122/2025

¶19

¶20

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 4.07.2025 10:28:23

¶21

indulgence of the Court for production of the abovesaid witness, such prayer was declined, this is how the present petition has been filed.

¶22

It is also apprised that the matter is fixed today itself before the learned Trial Court for hearing final arguments. It is also argued by the learned counsel for that there is no intention to delay the proceedings of the case and he only seeks intervention of the Court as the witness in question is not under his control.

¶23

On the basis of request made by this Court, learned counsel for petitioner contacted Mr. Sachin Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent and Mr. Agarwal has joined the proceeding through video conferencing.

¶24

Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent submits that there is no such employee of plaintiff and the intention and objective behind moving such application is to delay the inevitable.

¶25

Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that he has already supplied the complete and correct address of such witness and he only seeks one opportunity to examine him with the assistance of the Court so that he, at least, appears before the Court pursuant to such summon. He also submits that in case the summons are received back unserved for any reason whatsoever, he would not make any further request in this regard before the learned Trial Court.

¶26

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with request to learned Trial Court to issue summon with respect to the abovesaid witness. 11. In view of the above, the hearing of final argument may also be suitably deferred.

¶27

It is, however, clarified that the petitioner herein would be entitled to only one opportunity in this regard and it will be up to the learned Trial Court

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

CM(M) 1122/2025

¶30

¶31

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 4.07.2025 10:28:23

¶32

to take further decision with respect to the abovesaid witness in terms of process report to be received by the Court.

¶33