Dismissed¶33

Ashok Arora v. Rajender Singh

Delhi HC26 Feb 2026CM(M)/447/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition CM(M) 447/2026, High Court of Delhi, Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, decided 26.02.2026; closure of defence evidence (DE); recall application dismissed; S.151 CPC adjournment application; repeated adjournments since 02.11.2023; mediation returned 'non starter'; cost Rs.2000/- imposed and paid; adjournment 09.04.2025; delay of trial by defendant; old-age plea for one more opportunity rejected; SCJ No. 96365/2016; petitioner Ashok Arora v. respondent Rajender Singh; petition dismissed as devoid of merits; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the petitioner; CM APPL. 13299/2026 (for exemption) alone was allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ¶33

Ashok Arora Vs Rajender Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to the petitioner; CM APPL. 13299/2026 (for exemption) alone was allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court erred in closing the petitioner's right to lead defence evidence (order dated 12.11.2025) and in dismissing his application seeking recall of that order (order dated 12.02.2026), given that closure would allegedly cause serious prejudice to the defence. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The matter had been listed for defence evidence since 02.11.2023 and ample opportunities, including opportunities subject to payment of costs, were granted to the petitioner, who nonetheless failed to lead his defence evidence.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's conduct clearly showed he was not interested in leading his evidence and only wanted to delay the trial.

¶32

Key takeaways

This Court found no infirmity in the trial court's order closing the petitioner's evidence, nor in the impugned order dated 12.02.2026, the trial court having passed a well-reasoned order.ratio¶32
The present petition was dismissed as devoid of any merits, and pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.), CM(M) 447/2026, decided 26.02.2026 (oral order): Dismissed an Article 227 petition by the defendant (Ashok Arora) assailing the trial court's order dated 12.02.2026 in SCJ No. 96365/2016, which had dismissed his application seeking recall of the order dated 12.11.2025 whereby his right to lead defence evidence was closed. The matter had stood at the defence-evidence stage since 02.11.2023 amid repeated adjournments, a failed mediation ('non starter'), and an adjournment of 09.04.2025 granted against a Rs.2000/- cost which the defendant paid; a further S.151 CPC adjournment application was dismissed and the right to lead DE closed. The High Court held that ample opportunities, even subject to costs, had been given; the petitioner's conduct showed he was not interested in leading evidence and only wanted to delay the trial; it found no infirmity in either order, terming the trial court's order well-reasoned, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits, disposing of pending applications. The plea of old age did not prevail.

¶1

$~63

¶2

I� THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT �EW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 26^th February, 2026

¶4

- CM(M) 447/2026 ASHOK ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAJENDER SINGH .....Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HO�'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ�EESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶8

ORDER (Oral)

¶9

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶10

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 13299/2026 (for exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. CM(M) 447/2026 & CM APPL. 13298/2026 (for stay)

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 12^th February, 2026, passed by the trial court in SCJ No. 96365/2016, whereby the application seeking recall of the order dated 12^th November, 2025 has been dismissed.

¶14

Heard. Record perused.

¶15

The Trial Court vide Order dated 12^th November, 2025, has closed the right of the petitioner to lead his evidence. Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

CM(M) 447/2026

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 11:38:12

¶20

has argued that if the petitioner is not allowed to lead his defence evidence, serious prejudice would be caused to the defence of the petitioner. The petitioner could not lead his evidence on account of his old age and one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence.

¶21

The order dated 12^th November, 2025 reads as follows:

¶22

“Previous cost stands paid.

¶23

Matter is at the stage of DE.

¶24

Perusal of previous order sheets shows that matter is listed for DE since 02.11.2023. Thereafter the repeated adjournments had been sought by the defendant. Then the matter was even sent to mediation, which was received back with the report non starter. Thereafter again repeated adjournments were sought by the Ld. Counsel for defendant so much so that adjournment dated 09.04.2025 was allowed subject to the cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the plaintiff. Today, defendant has paid the cost of Rs.2000/- to the plaintiff. However, Ld. Counsel for defendant has also moved an application u/s 151 CPC seeking adjournment for today alleging that a revision petition has been filed and that wrong date of hearing was noted by the counsel for the defendant. However, Ld. Counsel for defendant also concedes that there is no stay on the matter.

¶25

Keeping in view the conduct of the defendant, the reasons stated for seeking adjournment are not found satisfactory and it is seen as yet another opportunity by the defendant to delay the trial. Accordingly, the application u/s 151 CPC filed by the defendant is dismissed.

¶26

Right of the defendant to lead DE is hereby closed .”

¶27

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the matter had been listed for defence evidence since 02^nd November, 2023 and ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence and even subject to payment of costs. Despite the same, the petitioner has failed to lead his

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

CM(M) 447/2026

¶30

Page 2 of 3

¶31

Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 11:38:12

¶32

defence evidence. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that the petitioner was not interested in leading his evidence and only wants to delay the trial. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the trial court closing the evidence of the petitioner and also in the impugned order as the trial court has passed a well-reasoned order.

¶33

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merits. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

RAJ�EESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶35

FEBRUARY 26, 2026/ MR/TP

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Signed By:VAISHALI CM(M) 447/2026 CHAUHAN Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 11:38:12

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Ashok Arora v. Rajender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Arora v. Rajender Singh

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

Jitendar Kumar Sharma Vs Anita Anand

Pawan Kumar Vs Gopal Krishan Jindal

Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs Hans Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

Savitri Devi Vs Asharfi Devi

Randhir Kumar Singh Vs Manjeet Solanki

Anita Yadav Vs Shailesh Jain & Anr.

Anil Arora Vs Achal Sharma

Ram Dulare Yadav@ Gandhi Bhai Vs Kapil Goel

Jitendar Kumar Sharma Vs Anita Anand

Pawan Kumar Vs Gopal Krishan Jindal

Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs Hans Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

Raj Kumar Mittal Vs Jammu and Kashmir Bank and Anr.

Vohra Rubber and Electricals Vs M.K. Enterprises & Ors.

Tilak Raj Malhotra and Anr. Vs Suresh Kumar Gautam