Dismissed¶¶27

Mrs.Veena Jain & Anr. v. Sh Bhushan Kumar Jain & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Jan 2026CM(M)/8/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CM(M) 8/2026, Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J., 06.01.2026 — Article 227; Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC; recall of order closing right to lead evidence; senior citizens/old age plea rejected; belated application filed after more than one year; matter at final arguments stage; settlement talks no justification for adjournments; costs of Rs. 5,000/- to DLSA not deposited; impugned trial court orders upheld; petition dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the main prayer; petition dismissed and impugned orders upheld. CM APPL. 338/2026 (for exemption) allowed subject to all just exceptions; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶¶27

Mrs.Veena Jain & Anr. Vs Sh Bhushan Kumar Jain & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on the main prayer; petition dismissed and impugned orders upheld. CM APPL. 338/2026 (for exemption) allowed subject to all just exceptions; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the petitioners' application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of the order dated 09.02.2024 (closing their right to lead evidence) and permission to lead their evidence, as challenged by way of the present petition under Article 227. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

Mere old age of the petitioners cannot be a ground to allow the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, particularly when ample opportunities were granted to lead their evidence.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no illegality in the impugned orders dated 09.02.2024 and 11.08.2025 and upholds them; the present petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merits, and pending applications stand disposed of.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

The settlement talks, as argued, do not justify the repeated adjournments; the adjournments sought by the petitioners before their evidence was closed delayed the disposal of the case.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging trial court orders dated 09.02.2024 and 11.08.2025 — by the former, the petitioners' right to lead evidence was closed after a final opportunity subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with DLSA (not deposited); by the latter, their application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, filed on 02.06.2025 (over a year later, at the stage of final arguments) seeking recall of the 09.02.2024 order and permission to lead evidence, was dismissed. Held: mere old age of the petitioners cannot be a ground to allow the application, particularly when ample opportunities were granted to lead evidence; settlement talks do not justify repeated adjournments, which delayed disposal of the case; no illegality found in the impugned orders — petition dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 8/2026

¶4

MRS.VEENA JAIN & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Mr. Anuj P. Agarwala, Mr. H.S. Sharma, Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Vipul Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SH BHUSHAN KUMAR JAIN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 06.01.2026

¶8

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

¶9

CM APPL. 338/2026 (for exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 8/2026 & CM APPL. 337/2026 (for stay of orders dated 9^th February, 2024 and 11^th August, 2025)

¶11

By way of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the petitioners have assailed the orders dated 09^th February, 2024 and 11^th August, 2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC was dismissed by the trial court.

¶12

This Court has heard the ld. Counsel for the petitioners. Record perused.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are senior citizens and could not produce their evidence due to their age-related ailments, and also, the matter has been explored by the petitioners to be settled

¶14

CM(M) 8/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 08/01/2026 at 12:38:46

¶18

between the parties. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the principles of equity and natural justice and has been passed without giving any cogent reasons. In case, the petitioners are not granted an opportunity to lead evidence, they would suffer irreparable loss.

¶19

The operative portion of the impugned order dated 11^th August, 2025 reads as under:

¶20

“9. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the present matter is at a stage of final arguments. The applicants/defendants no.5 & 7, by way of the present application, seek to recall of order dated 09.02.2024 and have sought permission to lead to their evidence. There is no justified ground shown by them in their application as to why they waited for so long and moved the present application only on 02.06.2025. Even if the defendants no.5 & 7 are senior citizens there is no justifiable ground to recall of order dated 09.02.2024 since they were through-out represented by their counsel and were well aware of the proceedings of the case. They chose not to abide by the order dated 09.02.2024 and avail the opportunity to lead their evidence for the reasons best known to them. Litigants are not expected to conduct the proceedings of the case as per their whims and fancies. The present application has been moved at a highly belated stage and I do not find any cogent reason to allow the same. Accordingly, the application of the defendants no.5 & 7 stands dismissed.”

¶21

A perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 9^th February, 2024, the right of the petitioners to lead their evidence was closed after they had been granted a final opportunity, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/ to be deposited with DLSA. The said costs were also not deposited.

¶22

The present application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC was filed after more than one year from the date of the order dated 9^th February, 2024. Mere old age of the petitioners cannot be a ground to allow the application,

¶23

CM(M) 8/2026

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

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 08/01/2026 at 12:38:46

¶26

particularly when ample opportunities were granted to lead their evidence.

¶27

The settlement talks, as argued, also do not justify the repeated adjournments. The adjournments sought by the petitioners before their evidence was closed have delayed the disposal of the case. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders, and the same are upheld. The present petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merits. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶29

JANUARY 6, 2026 / nd/tp

¶30

CM(M) 8/2026

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

Mrs.Veena Jain & Anr. v. Sh Bhushan Kumar Jain & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Veena Jain & Anr. v. Sh Bhushan Kumar Jain & 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

Sh Baljeet Singh & Anr. Vs Sh Bijendra Singh & Anr.

Anita Kumari Vs the State and Others

Kobelco Trading India Pvt. Ltd.and Anr. Vs Ms. Vandana Mishra

Cure Surgicals Vs Darshika Orthocare

Rani Chadha Vs Sudhir Chadha & Anr.

Gouri Shanker Gupta Vs Subhash Singh & Ors.

Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs Upkar Khurana

Tasneem Ahmadi Vs Akash Katyal & Ors.

Sh Baljeet Singh & Anr. Vs Sh Bijendra Singh & Anr.

Anita Kumari Vs the State and Others

Kobelco Trading India Pvt. Ltd.and Anr. Vs Ms. Vandana Mishra

Guru Prakash Vs Om Prakash

Ms Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Mr Vikram Chandwani and Anr.

Akash Katyal & Anr. Vs Tasneem Ahmadi & Ors.