Disposed¶28

Dilbagh Singh v. Tejpal Singh & Ors.

Delhi HC21 Apr 2026CM(M)/2182/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CM(M) 2182/2025, Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, decision dated 21 April 2026. Article 227 jurisdiction; closure of defendant's right to lead evidence; last opportunity; evidence affidavit of DW Dilbagh Singh already on record; one final opportunity to examine DW; civil suit CS DJ No. 8870/2016; adjournment denied in old matter; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with one more opportunity granted to the petitioner to examine only DW - Dilbagh Singh, whose evidence affidavit is already on record; the Trial Court may record his evidence on the date already fixed or any other convenient date; pending applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶28

Dilbagh Singh Vs Tejpal Singh & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 21^st April, 2026

¶2

CM(M) 2182/2025 & CM APPL. 71241/2025 DILBAGH SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Mishra and Mr. Kartikey Mittal, Advocates (Through VC).

¶3

versus

¶4

TEJPAL SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vijay Zaveri, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶5

ORDER (Oral)

¶6

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶7

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 30^th October, 2025, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS DJ No. 8870/2016 , whereby the right of the petitioner/defendant to lead evidence has been closed.

¶8

Heard. Record perused.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has closed the right of the petitioner/defendant to lead evidence without granting sufficient opportunities. It is further submitted that, if the petitioner is not granted an opportunity to lead evidence, grave injustice would be caused to the petitioner.

¶10

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Trial Court has granted sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to lead

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

CM(M) 2182/2025

¶14

Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Da te:2 2.04.2026 11:47:14

¶15

evidence. However, the petitioner has failed to avail the same, and the present petition has been filed only to delay the trial of the case.

¶16

The impugned order dated 30^th October, 2025 reads as under:

¶17

“ Today the matter is fixed for examination in chief and cross examination of DW1 .

¶18

On 10.10.2025 plaintiff’s evidence was closed and it was directed that evidence affidavit of DW1 be filed before the next date of hearing. It was also made clear that no adjournment shall be granted to the defendant on the next date of hearing. On the next date of hearing i.e. 18.10.2025 defendant had sought some more time to file evidence affidavit of defendant's witness and last opportunity was granted to defendant to lead evidence; however no evidence affidavit has been filed till date. In the circumstances, this court considers it fit to close the right of defendant to lead evidence . DE stands closed.

¶19

Considering that is one of the oldest matters, it is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted. If either of the parties fail to appear, the matter shall be decided on the basis of pleadings and evidence already led.

¶20

List for final arguments on 17.11.2025. ”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already filed the evidence affidavit of DW - Dilbagh Singh , along with the list of witnesses, before the concerned Trial Court.

¶22

The petitioner has only filed the evidence affidavit of DW - Dilbagh Singh . After keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to examine only DW - Dilbagh Singh, as his evidence affidavit has been already placed on record.

¶23