Dsc Fengsuhun Wabag Consrotium Vs Krishan Kumar and Ors.

$~61 & 62

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CM(M) 1421/2026, CM APPL. 42256/2026 & CM APPL. 42257/2026

DSC FENGSUHUN WABAG CONSROTIUM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Tayal, Mr. Bhaskar, Ms. Monalika Chaudhary and Ms. Anushka R. Saxena, Advs. versus

¶5

KRISHAN KUMAR AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, CGSC for UOI. Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Mr. Sarthak Mittal and Mr. Prabin Mohan, Advs. for R-4. 62 + CM(M) 1422/2026, CM APPL. 42258/2026 & CM APPL. 42259/2026 DSC FENGSUHUN WABAG CONSROTIUM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Tayal, Mr. Bhaskar, Ms. Monalika Chaudhary and Ms. Anushka R. Saxena, Advs.

¶6

versus JASVEER SINGH AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, CGSC for UOI.

¶7

This is a digitally signed order.

¶8

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 15/07/2026 at 11:35:15

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 13.07.2026

¶12

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 16.05.2026 whereby the DJ-01, North-East District Karkardooma District Courts, New Delhi, in CS DJ No. 237 of 2019, titled ‘Krishan Kumar versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.’ dismissed the application for recall of order dated 26.02.2026, and closed the right of the petitioner to examine its witness.

¶13

The petitioner is a consortium, i.e. a group of three companies involved in the business of construction. 3. The present dispute emanates from a suit filed by Respondent No. 1 bearing CS DJ No. 237/2019 and CS DJ No. 165/2018 seeking a money decree for damages to the tune of ₹1,23,20,550 and ₹1,52,06,400, and ₹4,00,000 for inconvenience and loss of property respectively. It is the case of respondent no.1/plaintiff that respondent no. 4 proposed to lay interceptor sewers across three major drains in an attempt to abate pollution in Yamuna River. The petitioner, defendant no. 6 therein, emerged as the successful bidder and was selected as the contractor to execute the particular project. 4. During the course of the work, in August 2017, a depression got created in the earth leading to creation of sink holes which caused the respondent no. 1’s house to tilt. 5. That during the course of the trial, the petitioner, on 17.07.2025 examined their witness in chief, i.e. D6W1, and the cross examination of the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 15/07/2026 at 11:35:15

¶16

same was fixed for 16.10.2025. On the same day, the petitioner’s application for summoning of EDMC’s witness was allowed, and the date of 17.10.2025 was fixed for examination of said witness. Eventually the date of 17.10.2025 was cancelled upon joint request and 19.12.2025 and 20.12.2025 were blocked for petitioner’s evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner had not filed the PF in terms of order dated 17.07.2025.

¶17

On 20.12.2025, petitioner’s witness D6W1 was cross examined and discharged. The learned trial court directed EDMC to produce either of the signatories of the report dated 10.10.2017, as the application for the same had been allowed by the learned trial court. The case was then fixed for 07.02.2026 for further evidence of the petitioner. 7. On 07.02.2026, as no witness was present, the matter was listed for 26.05.2026. Even by then, the petitioner had not filed the PF.

¶18

On 26.02.2026, the learned trial court noted that despite allowing the application for production of witness, the petitioner had not filed the PF on numerous occasions. Thus, the petitioner was directed to deposit cost of ₹2,000 to each of the parties. Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to take appropriate steps for filing of requisite PF within 7 days of passing of order, failing which the petitioner was directed to deposit a cost of ₹20,000 with the Shahdara Bar Association. The court made it clear that the same amounts to last and final opportunity to conclude evidence.

¶19

The petitioner thereafter on 06.05.2026 filed an application under section 151 CPC seeking recall of the order dated 26.02.2026 by inter-alia asserting that the order was devoid of merits and attempted to establish its bonafides in filing the requisite PF, and proactively attempting to summon the EDMC witness.

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 15/07/2026 at 11:35:15

¶22

The learned trial court on 16.05.2026 dismissed the recall application and noted that the suit is one of the oldest cases pending adjudication, and that the petitioner had been afforded numerous opportunities since 17.10.2025 to file PF and summon the witness, however, had failed to do so. Thus, the petitioner’s actions have resulted in delays which were otherwise avoidable.

¶23

Mr. Tayal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 16.05.2026 proceeds on a factually incorrect premise as the petitioner had diligently filed the PF, and that any delay caused cannot be attributable to the petitioner.

¶24

The learned counsel further submitted that the order closing the right to lead evidence and examine a material witness forecloses a substantial right of the petitioner on purely procedural grounds. He has further submitted that it is trite law that procedure is the handmaiden of justice and that the substantial right of a litigant should not be affected due to procedural lapses.

¶25

Heard. Perused the record. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is vital to balance equities in the present case as, while the petitioner cannot be allowed to enjoy the fruit of his procedural laxity, the substantial rights, of the petitioner also ought not to be closed on account of said rectifiable lapses. 15. Accordingly, petitions are allowed, subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000/in the account of DHCBA Women Advocates Welfare Fund i.e., saving account no. 15530110172858 (IFSC- UCBA0001553), Bank Name- UCO Bank, Branch- Delhi High Court within a period of two weeks.

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 15/07/2026 at 11:35:15

¶28

The petitions along with pending applications stand disposed of.

¶29

AJAY DIGPAUL, J

¶30

JULY 13, 2026/ AS/sg

¶31

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 15/07/2026 at 11:35:15

Dsc Fengsuhun Wabag Consrotium v. Krishan Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dsc Fengsuhun Wabag Consrotium v. Krishan Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Shreeram Vanijya Global Exim P Ltd. Vs Smt Sudesh Kumari

A K Basak Vs Moni Ghosh and Anr.

Bewealthy Properties Private Limited & Ors. Vs Golden Chariot Recreations Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. Priyanka Bhasin Vs Mohit Gambhir

Ms Nidhi Mourya Vs Aakash Rathore

Priyanka Kumari Vs Ajay Kumar

Ayush Aggarwal Vs Naresh Gupta

Veena Gupta Alias Beena Gupta Vs Bhagwan Das (Deceased) through His Lrs

Ms Shreeram Vanijya Global Exim P Ltd. Vs Smt Sudesh Kumari

A K Basak Vs Moni Ghosh and Anr.

Bewealthy Properties Private Limited & Ors. Vs Golden Chariot Recreations Pvt. Ltd.

Bhim Singh Vs Ram Kumar

Babu Lal Patel and Anr. Vs Senator Wood Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Rrb Energy Limited Vs Laplife Electronics Private Limited