Dismissed¶29

Aftab Ahmad & Anr. v. Mirza Aziz Beg (Since Deceased) through Legal Heirs Mirza Arif Beg and Ors.

Delhi HC12 Feb 2026CM(M)/355/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CM(M) 355/2026, Delhi High Court, Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, decision dated 12.02.2026. Article 227 petition by Aftab Ahmad & Anr. against Mirza Aziz Beg (since deceased) through legal heirs Mirza Arif Beg & Ors. Challenge to Trial Court order dated 25.09.2025 in rent case RC/ARC/371/2018 dismissing application to recall order dated 25.04.2025 and to lead evidence; plea of death of previous counsel and non-availability of certified copies rejected; closure of evidence upheld for want of diligence; petition dismissed; no cases cited; respondents unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Sufficient opportunities had been granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence, and their evidence was rightly closed by the Trial Court to avoid delay in disposal of the matter. ¶29

Aftab Ahmad & Anr. Vs Mirza Aziz Beg (Since Deceased)… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~55

¶2

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

¶3

- CM(M) 355/2026 AFTAB AHMAD & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶4

Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum and Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

MIRZA AZIZ BEG (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS MIRZA ARIF BEG AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA ORDER (Oral)

¶8

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶9

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

¶10

CM APPL. 9739/2026 & CM APPL. 9740/2026 (for exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of. CM(M) 355/2026 & CM APPL. 9738/2026 (for interim relief)

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the order dated 25^th September, 2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in RC/ARC/371/2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/respondents for recalling the order dated 25^th April, 2025 and seeking permission to lead evidence, was dismissed.

¶13

Heard. Record perused.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners could

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

CM(M) 355/2026

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

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

¶19

not lead evidence on 25^th April 2025, as their previous counsel has expired and affidavit of evidence could not be filed due to non-availability of the complete certified copies of the record to the new counsel. As the non-filing of affidavit in evidence and non-examination of the witnesses is neither intentional nor deliberate, so the opportunity be granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence.

¶20

The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 25^th September, 2025 reads as follows:

¶21

“Perusal of record shows that vide order dated 26.10.2023 leave to defend application was treated as WS and only one opportunity was granted to respondent to lead respondent evidence. However, subsequently from 21.12.2023 to 21.11.2024 the respondent did not lead any evidence despite availing repeated opportunities and imposition of costs, and despite the fact that Ld. Counsel for the respondent was present on several dates. Therefore, it is clear that sufficient opportunities to lead respondent evidence were already availed by the respondent even before the death of the previous counsel.

¶22

Even from 16.01.2024, when the new Counsel was engaged, till 25.04.2025 the respondent again did not lead any evidence.

¶23

It is thus clear from the conduct of the respondent that intentionally and deliberately he has not been taking steps to lead evidence. Therefore, recalling order dated 25.04.2025 and reopening the evidence would cause injustice to the petitioner who has been suffering due to unnecessary delay caused by the respondent.

¶24

Accordingly, no grounds are made out to allow the present

¶25

application. The present application is accordingly disposed of as dismissed for being without merits. ”

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Signed By:NAMITA CM(M) 355/2026 DHYANI Signing Da te:1 3.02.2026 11:14:13

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

A perusal of the record shows that as the sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence, so their evidence has been rightly closed by the Trial Court to avoid delay in the disposal of the matter. As the Trial Court has passed a reasoned order in accordance with law to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceedings, 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/ nd/abk

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

CM(M) 355/2026

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

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

Aftab Ahmad & Anr. v. Mirza Aziz Beg (Since Deceased) through Legal Heirs Mirza Arif Beg and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aftab Ahmad & Anr. v. Mirza Aziz Beg (Since Deceased) through Legal Heirs Mirza Arif Beg and Ors.

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