Dismissed¶29

Kunal Structure India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Instapower Ltd.

Delhi HC17 Feb 2026CM(M)/378/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Article 227 petition; CM(M) 378/2026; Order XI Rule 1 CPC; discovery by interrogatory; documents in plaintiff's possession; defence struck off (17.08.2023); PE stage since 28.02.2024; cross-examination; PW-1; CS(COMM) 163/2023; trial court order upheld; delay of trial. Relevant when arguing or opposing the scope of a defendant's rights after defence is struck off, or the viability of interrogatory/discovery applications at the principal-evidence stage in a commercial suit.

What did the court decide?

None substantive to the petitioners; CM APPL. 10758/2026 (for exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶29

Kunal Structure India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Instapower… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None substantive to the petitioners; CM APPL. 10758/2026 (for exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's dismissal of the application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC seeking discovery by way of interrogatory of documents in the possession of the plaintiff was infirm and warranted interference in this Article 227 petition. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The petitioner failed to show any legal justification for moving the application; this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order, which is a reasoned order passed in accordance with law.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J., oral order, 17 February 2026) dismissed CM(M) 378/2026, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the Trial Court's order dated 28 November 2025 in CS(COMM) 163/2023, whereby the defendant's application under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking discovery by way of interrogatory of documents in the plaintiff's possession had been dismissed. Context: the defendant's defence had been struck off on 17 August 2023, the suit had stood at the PE stage since 28.02.2024, the impugned order held that a defendant whose defence is struck off may only cross-examine the plaintiff on the plaintiff's own case, and a last and final opportunity had been given to cross-examine PW-1. Documents sought (application paras 3(a)-3(d)) included items allegedly sent by the petitioner to the respondent, one of which was already on record. Finding that the petitioner had shown no legal justification for the application, the Court deemed the impugned order a reasoned order passed in accordance with law, dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, and disposed of pending applications; CM APPL. 10758/2026 (exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶1

$~64

¶2

I� THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT �EW DELHI Date of Decision: 17^th February, 2026

¶3

CM(M) 378/2026

¶4

KUNAL STRUCTURE INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Yash Mishra, Mr. Satyadev Prakash, Ms. Tanushree Karnawat, Ms. Manshi Rajpal and Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

INSTAPOWER LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Sonali Chopra, Advocate. CORAM: HO�'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ�EESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶7

ORDER (Oral)

¶8

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶9

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 10758/2026 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 378/2026 & CM APPL. 10757/2026 (for stay) 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 28^th November, 2025, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS(COMM) 163/2023, whereby the application preferred under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking discovery by way of interrogatory of documents in the possession of the plaintiff, has been dismissed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent has appeared on advance notice and accepted notice.

¶11

CM(M) 378/2026

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 8.02.2026 12:04:36

¶15

The matter has been taken up for hearing today with consent of the learned Counsels.

¶16

Heard. Record perused.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the documents which are sought to be put to the respondent/plaintiff during cross-examination are relevant to the case and, in case this opportunity is not granted, the defence of the petitioner would be prejudiced. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

¶18

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the application has been filed only with a view to delay the trial. It is submitted that the application was rightly dismissed, as the defence of the defendant had already been struck off on 17^th August, 2023.

¶19

The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows:

¶20

“The right to file the written statement is closed by this Court as well as Hon’ble High Court. Presently the case is at the stage of PE since 28.02.2024 and the defendant is delaying the same on one and other ground. The present application is filed for production of certain documents stated to be in possession of plaintiff however, no reasons are given. It is settled law that when the defence is struck off then the limited right of the defendant is to cross examine the plaintiff on the basis of the case set up by the plaintiff and not to put any defence. In view thereof the present application is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Last and final opportunity is given to cross examine

¶22

PW-1.”

¶23

The documents sought to be put to the respondent during cross-examination are detailed in paragraph No. 3 of the application.

¶24

CM(M) 378/2026

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 8.02.2026 12:04:36

¶28

Documents at paragraphs 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) are stated to be those allegedly sent by the petitioner to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that document 3 (d) is already placed on record.

¶29

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner has failed to show any legal justification for moving the application, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order which is a a reasoned order passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

RAJ�EESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶31

FEBRUARY 17, 2026/ v/ isk

¶32

CM(M) 378/2026

¶33

Page 3 of 3

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 8.02.2026 12:04:36

Kunal Structure India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Instapower Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Structure India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Instapower Ltd.

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

Deepak Talwar Vs Nishi Rastogi

Sh Hardut Vs Smt Shashi & Ors.

Association of Reventa Members through Authorized Representative Sh. Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs Komalam Kuttappan Kalappurayil & Anr.

Sahida Vs Yusuf and Ors.

Kaushalya Devi Vs Ms Praveena Arora & Anr.

Suraj Prakash Luthra Vs Smt. Saroj & Ors.

Vijay Suresh Gupta Vs Atrica Tradex Private Limited & Anr.

Mr Lokesh Sharma Vs Delhi Public Library

Deepak Talwar Vs Nishi Rastogi

Association of Reventa Members through Authorized Representative Sh. Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs Komalam Kuttappan Kalappurayil & Anr.

Sahida Vs Yusuf and Ors.

Archana Mohan Vs Anju Bala & Anr.

Shri Shyam Tandon Vs Mr. Mohd. Haroon Japanwala & Ors.

Shri Gian Chand Ralhan Vs Shri Gurvinder Singh Bakshi