Allowed

M/S Excel Engineering Company v. M/S Caparo Engineering India Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Feb 2025CM(M)/342/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside an order closing the petitioner's evidence in a civil suit. The court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,000 as costs and file the advance copy of the affidavit within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 26.10.2024 was set aside, petitioner allowed to lead evidence subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/ costs, filing of affidavit advance copy within 15 days, and no further adjournment

M/S Excel Engineering Company Vs M/S Caparo… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 342/2025

¶4

M/S EXCEL ENGINEERING COMPANY .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Vikas Sethi, Adv

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S CAPARO ENGINEERING INDIA LTD

¶8

& ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Kumar & Mr. Goorang Gupta, Advs

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶10

O R D E R % 19.02.2025 CM APPL. 10068/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

CM(M) 342/2025 & CM APPL. 10067/2025 (Stay of Order)

¶14

This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 26.10.2024 whereby the Trial Court closed the right of the petitioner to lead his evidence.

¶15

Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for recovery and damages.

¶16

The Trial Court’s order reveals that affidavit of the witnesses was not filed before the Trial Court and the advance copy of affidavit was also not supplied to the opposite counsel.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that advance copy of the affidavit was sent to the counsel for the respondents way back on

¶18

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 00:41:02

¶19

30.07.2022 via email, copy of the said email is placed on record.

¶20

However, inadvertently, the affidavit was not filed in Court and that petitioner was ready to file the same before the Trial Court on the same day, but the learned Trial Court refused to entertain the same and closed the evidence. He submits that petitioner needs only one opportunity to examine his only witness.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice submits that advance copy of the affidavit was not provided and there is no justification to the challenge raised to the impugned order of closure of the plaintiff’s right to lead evidence.

¶22

Right to lead evidence is a valuable right. If such right is denied, the petitioner may suffer irrepairable loss. For the delay caused by not filing the affidavit of evidence or providing the advance copy of affidavit of evidence, respondent can certainly be compensated by cost.

¶23

Keeping in view of the entire facts and circumstances, I deem it opposite to grant one more opportunity to petitioner to lead its evidence. 9. The impugned order dated 26.10.2024 is set aside, subject to cost of Rs 15,000/- with direction to the petitioner to provide advance copy of affidavit of evidence of PW1 within a period of next 15 days. This order is also subject to further condition that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment for leading plaintiff’s evidence on the date fixed by the trial Court for the said purpose.

¶24

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶25

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 19, 2025/ sk/ia

¶27

M/S Excel Engineering Company v. M/S Caparo Engineering India Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Excel Engineering Company v. M/S Caparo Engineering India Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bobbel Nagra

Sachin Singhal Vs Sonali Singhal

Indira Gandhi Library Society and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vijay Power Generators Ltd. Vs Tarun Engineering Syndicate

Mayank Adlakha Vs Arya Publishing Company

Pyramid Finmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rk Sinha and Associates and Ors.

Salil Sehgal & Anr. Vs M/S Balaji Zauba Thr Satyendra Kumar (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs

Juli Vs Rohit & Ors.

M/S. Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bobbel Nagra

Sachin Singhal Vs Sonali Singhal

Indira Gandhi Library Society and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sarita Devi & Anr. Vs Asha Ram

Manjeet Singh & Ors. Vs Ved Prakash Yadav & Ors.

Sh. Sandeep Garg Vs Smt. Romi Garg