Dismissed¶26

Brigadier Sudarshan Kumar Grover ( through Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Brig. (Retd.) Surinder Kumar Grover (Deceased) ( through Legal Heirs) & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Aug 2025CM(M)/1587/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 review upheld; Order XVI Rule 1 CPC application to summon three additional official witnesses rejected as belated; CM(M) 1587/2025 dismissed in limine; trial court order dated 15.07.2025 found judicious, no perversity or arbitrariness; 1994 partition and declaration suit pending final arguments since 27.01.2018; Delhi HC, Justice Manoj Jain, 22 August 2025; pending applications disposed; trial court urged to conclude suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The learned Trial Court's exercise of jurisdiction in dismissing the abovesaid application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC was judicious and did not contain any perversity or arbitrariness. ¶25

Brigadier Sudarshan Kumar Grover ( through Legal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's dismissal of the application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC (request to summon additional witnesses) contained perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The learned Trial Court's exercise of jurisdiction in dismissing the abovesaid application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC was judicious and did not contain any perversity or arbitrariness.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The position did not necessitate any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; accordingly the petition was dismissed in limine.

¶25

Key takeaways

A request to examine additional (official) witnesses coming at such a belated stage is not entertainable at all.ratio¶17
Irrespective of the defendants' alleged shifting stand, the petitioner/plaintiff could still have called those official witnesses, particularly in a partition suit.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J.; oral judgment dated 22.08.2025) dismisses in limine CM(M) 1587/2025, a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution to a Trial Court order dated 15.07.2025 that had declined plaintiff No.1(b)'s request for summoning additional witnesses and dismissed the application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. The suit (partition and declaration) dates to 1994; plaintiff's evidence closed 27.01.2010, defendants' evidence 13.12.2017, and the case has lain for final arguments since 27.01.2018; the witness application was moved about six years thereafter. The Court holds the Trial Court's exercise of jurisdiction judicious, without perversity or arbitrariness, that a request for additional (official) witnesses at such a belated stage is 'not entertainable at all', and that the plaintiff could in any event have called those official witnesses in a partition suit notwithstanding the defendants' alleged shifting stand. Pending applications stand disposed of, and the Trial Court is requested to dispose of the long-pending suit expeditiously.

¶1

$~103

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 22^nd , August, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1587/2025, CM APPL. 52225/2025, CM APPL. 52226/2025 & CM APPL. 52227/2025

¶5

BRIGADIER SUDARSHAN KUMAR GROVER ( THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aaditya Vijaykumar with Mr. Amber Chaturvedi, Ms. Pratishtha Chauhan, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

BRIG. (RETD.) SURINDER KUMAR GROVER (DECEASED) ( THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) & ORS. .....Respondent Through:

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶11

Petitioner has filed a suit for partition and declaration and is aggrieved by order dated 15.07.2025 whereby the request made by the plaintiff No.1(b) for summoning additional witnesses has been declined and, resultantly, their application moved under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC has been dismissed.

¶12

Admittedly, the suit in question was filed way back in the year 1994.

¶13

The issues were framed on 30.05.2006.

¶14

The plaintiff was able to conclude his evidence on 27.01.2010.

¶15

Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of defendants was also closed on 13.12.2017 and the matter is lying for final arguments since 27.01.2018.

¶16

After virtually, a period of six years reckoned from the date when the matter was listed for final arguments, the abovesaid application had been moved seeking permission to examine three additional witnesses.

¶17

Undoubtedly, the witnesses which the plaintiff wants to examine are official witnesses but fact remains that such request coming at such a belated stage is not entertainable at all.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

CM(M) 1587/2025

¶20

¶21

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 15:24:18

¶22

According to learned counsel for petitioner, the necessity of moving the abovesaid application arose only in the year 2022 because of shifting stand taken by the respondents/defendants, when reply was filed on behalf of LR No. 1 of defendant No.1.

¶23

Fact, however, remains that the adjudication of the suit for partition would be based on the evidence led before it and, therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner is completely misdirected one and being unnecessarily apprehensive, the abovesaid application was filed by him seeking to examine additional witnesses.

¶24

If petitioner/plaintiff really wanted to examine those witnesses, irrespective of the alleged shifting stand taken by the defendants, it could have, still, called those official witnesses, particularly, when the suit in question is a partition suit.

¶25

Fact, however, remains that the exercise of jurisdiction by learned Trial Court while dismissing of the abovesaid application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC seems to be a judicious one and does not contain any perversity or arbitrariness, necessitating any interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶26

The present petition is dismissed in limine .

¶27

Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶28

Since the suit was filed in the year 1994 and is at the stage of final argument for quite some time, learned Trial Court is requested to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible.

¶29

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶30

AUGUST 22, 2025/ sw/JS

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

CM(M) 1587/2025

¶33

¶34

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 15:24:18

Brigadier Sudarshan Kumar Grover ( through Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Brig. (Retd.) Surinder Kumar Grover (Deceased) ( through Legal Heirs) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brigadier Sudarshan Kumar Grover ( through Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Brig. (Retd.) Surinder Kumar Grover (Deceased) ( through Legal Heirs) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A K Kapoor Vs Raubindra Singh Kohli & Anr.

Gaurav Singh Vs Sita Ram

Brigadier Balwant Dahiya Trust Vs Shakuntala Dahiya and Ors.

M/S Swadeshi Dham Vs M/S Mabel Apparel Pvt. Ltd.

Jai Prakash Sharma Vs M/S National Marwari Foundation & Anr.

Jadav Chandra Dey Vs Sukanto Barua & Ors.

Shakti Rana Vs Smt Savita

Sh. Girish Kapoor and Anr. Vs Sh. Roop Kishore Rastogi and Ors.

A K Kapoor Vs Raubindra Singh Kohli & Anr.

Gaurav Singh Vs Sita Ram

Brigadier Balwant Dahiya Trust Vs Shakuntala Dahiya and Ors.

Scooters India Ltd. Vs Sanyog Engineers and Anr.

Ajay Sharma Vs Spacebiz Solutions Private Limited & Ors.

M/S Rajputana Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Nova Formworks Pvt. Ltd.