Dismissed¶29

Kapil v. Pawan Kumar

Delhi HC12 Feb 2026CM(M)/303/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CM(M) 303/2026, decision 12.02.2026, Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J. Kapil (petitioner/defendant) v. Pawan Kumar. Article 227 challenge to Trial Court order dated 02.04.2025 in CS DJ ADJ 950/2018 dismissing application to summon witness Randhir and closing defendant's evidence; witness not named in list of witnesses due within 15 days of framing of issues (02.05.2019); additional witness list rejected; application pressed only on last-opportunity date; petition filed ~10 months late; delay attributed to petitioner; impugned order upheld; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the Trial Court's order dismissing the application to summon Randhir and closing the petitioner's evidence, and upholds the impugned order. ¶29

Kapil Vs Pawan Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's dismissal of the petitioner/defendant's application to summon witness Randhir and closure of his evidence was lawful and free from illegality or infirmity such that it should be upheld under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶13

Court's answer

This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the Trial Court's order dismissing the application to summon Randhir and closing the petitioner's evidence, and upholds the impugned order.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

From the facts that the witness was not named in the list of witnesses, the summons application was pressed only on the date of the last opportunity, and the petition was filed about ten months after the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner wants only to delay the proceedings in the Trial Court.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Trial Court passed a reasoned order in accordance with law so as to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceedings.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution dismissed; Trial Court order upheld. The Trial Court (CS DJ ADJ 950/2018), by order dated 02 April 2025, rejected the defendant's additional list of witnesses (filed without seeking leave), dismissed his application to summon witness Randhir — whose name was absent from the list of witnesses required within 15 days of the framing of issues on 02.05.2019 — and closed the defendant's evidence after the last and final opportunity. Before the High Court (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.), counsel urged that Randhir was a material witness whose non-examination would cause grave prejudice. The Court noted the application was pressed only on the date of the last opportunity and that the petition was filed about ten months after the impugned order, from which it was evident the petitioner wanted only to delay the Trial Court proceedings. Finding the impugned order reasoned and in accordance with law, the Court upheld it and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit; pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 12^th February, 2026

¶3

- CM(M) 303/2026, CM APPL. 8196/2026, CM APPL. 8197/2026 & CM APPL. 8198/2026

¶4

KAPIL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind Vashishtha and Ms. Sakshi Panwar, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

PAWAN KUMAR .....Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶8

ORDER (Oral)

¶9

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶10

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 02^nd April, 2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS DJ ADJ 950/2018 , whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for summoning a witness, namely- Randhir has been dismissed and evidence of the petitioner was closed.

¶12

Heard. Record perused.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the DW-Randhir is a material witness of the case and that if he is not examined, it would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner’s case.

¶14

The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 02^nd April, 2025 reads as follows:

¶15

CM(M) 303/2026

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:1 3.02.2026 11:14:13

¶19

“Ld. counsel for defendant has prayed for dispoal of application for summoning of witness i.e. Sh. Randhir.

¶20

The application is strongly opposed by Ld. counsel for plaintiff.

¶21

The perusal of record reveals that the issues in the present case were framed vide order dated 02.05.2019. The parties were required to file list of witnesses within the period of 15 days from the date of said order.

¶22

It is an admitted fact that the name of DW Sh. Randhir was not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed on behalf of defendant. The defendant alongwith the application for summoning of witnesses has filed the additional list of witnesses. The leave of this court is not sought to file the additional list of witnesses. Hence, the additional list of witnesses filed on behalf of defendant is rejected. In view of rejection of additional list of witnesses, the present application for summoning of witness Sh. Randhir has also become infructuous. Hence dismissed .

¶23

No DW present. Last and final opportunity for DE was granted. Therefore, DE is closed.”

¶24

A perusal of the record shows that last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence on 02^nd April, 2025 and the application to summon the witness has been pressed only on that date. Issues in the present case were framed on 02^nd May, 2019 and the list of witnesses was required to be filed within 15 days from the date of the said order. The name of the witness which was sought to be examined has not been named in the list of witnesses filed on behalf of the petitioner. The present petition has also been filed after about ten months from the date of the impugned order. From these facts and circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner wants only to delay the proceedings in the Trial Court. As the Trial Court has passed a reasoned order in accordance with law to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceedings,

¶25

CM(M) 303/2026

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:1 3.02.2026 11:14:13

¶29

so, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and is upheld. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶31

FEBRUARY 12, 2026 / v/abk

¶32

CM(M) 303/2026

¶33

Page 3 of 3

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:1 3.02.2026 11:14:13

Kapil v. Pawan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil v. Pawan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Ghosh Vs Prem Chand Chauhan & Ors.

Sh Rakesh Kumar Nanda Deceased through His Wife Ms Lovely Nanda Vs Sh Jitender Singh

Mahendari & Anr. Vs Raj Bala & Anr.

M/S Bhargava Finance & Leasing Co. Vs M/S Das Innovators Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Bharat Bhushan Kalra Vs Sanjit

Km Mahak Vs Deepika Gautam

Sapna Goyal Vs Vivek Girish Dubey & Anr.

M/S Comtech Espirit (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs Neelamani Sharma & Ors.

Sunita Ghosh Vs Prem Chand Chauhan & Ors.

Sh Rakesh Kumar Nanda Deceased through His Wife Ms Lovely Nanda Vs Sh Jitender Singh

Mahendari & Anr. Vs Raj Bala & Anr.

Kamlesh Sadana Vs Ramesh Kumar

Sudesh Kumar Bhasin Since Deceased through Lrs Vs Shyam Setia and Ors.

M/S Jeet Engineering Works Sole Proprietorship through Its Sole Proprietor Kanta Pachnanda Vs M/S Doon Trading Co. Sole Proprietorship through Its Sole Proprietor Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dudani