Dismissed

Smt Jyoti & Anr. v. Sh Hitesh Bajaj

Delhi HC6 May 2026CM(M)/1036/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 227 challenged impugned orders closing the petitioners' evidence in a civil suit. The High Court found that the petitioners failed to utilize sufficient opportunities to lead evidence, causing delay in the trial. Held that no infirmity existed in the Trial Court's order.

What did the court decide?

The present petition under Article 227 was dismissed as devoid of merit; pending applications stand disposed of.

Smt Jyoti & Anr. Vs Sh Hitesh Bajaj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 06^th May, 2026

¶2

- CM(M) 1036/2026, CM APPL. 30194/2026 & CM APPL. 30195/2026 SMT JYOTI &ANR. .....Petitioners

¶3

Through: Mr. Rajender Chhabra and Ms. Vanya Chhabra, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

SH HITESH BAJAJ .....Respondent Through: None.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶7

ORDER (Oral)

¶8

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶9

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the impugned order dated 25^th March, 2025, 08^th July, 2025 and 07^th 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.

¶11

Heard. Record perused.

¶12

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

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

CM(M) 1036/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:0 7.05.2026 11:21:54

¶17

the petitioners to lead their evidence.

¶18

A perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 23^rd 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 25^th March, 2025, subject to payment of cost and a last opportunity was granted to the petitioners to examine their witnesses. Further, vide order dated 08^th 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶21

MAY 6, 2026/ MR/ik

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Signed By:MANISHA CM(M) 1036/2026 RAJPUT Signing Da te:0 7.05.2026 11:21:54

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Smt Jyoti & Anr. v. Sh Hitesh Bajaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jyoti & Anr. v. Sh Hitesh Bajaj

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

Anwar Inamuddin Khan Vs M/S Shiv Om Polymers

Urmil Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shrikanth Bagh & Anr.

Vikram Tokas Vs Sumit Wadhwa

Adib Fatema Nomani Vs the State (Govt of NCT Delhi) and Ors.

Toshniwal Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Singhla Autotech Pvt. Ltd.

Srs Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd.

Sunil Abrol Vs Usha Sethi and Ors.

Natasha Gujral Vs Shri Siddharth Gujral

Anwar Inamuddin Khan Vs M/S Shiv Om Polymers

Urmil Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shrikanth Bagh & Anr.

Vikram Tokas Vs Sumit Wadhwa

Shiv Mandir Avom Khatik Samaj Dharamshala Trust Vs Abhishek Lakhera

M/S Balaji Frieght Solutions Vs Fast Forward Logistics India Pvt. Ltd.

Sato Agrox India Pvtltd Vs Wagtail Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.