Dismissed¶¶21

Rajesh Sultania & Anr. v. Arun Kumar Murarka

Delhi HC6 Feb 2026CM(M)-IPD/9/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, Art. 227 petition (CM(M)-IPD 9/2026, decided 06.02.2026, Tushar Rao Gedela, J.) by Rajesh Sultania & Anr. against Arun Kumar Murarka, seeking setting aside of trial-court order dated 07.01.2026 (District Judge (Comml.)-05, Central, Tis Hazari, in CS(COMM) 3017/2021) closing DW-1's evidence and seeking limited re-examination/cross-examination of DW-1; Court reviewed the cross-examination, found exhibit references correctly noted and voluntary statements recorded, found no procedural irregularity or illegality, declined to interfere, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Wherever required, references to the exhibits were correctly mentioned and noted in the cross-examination of DW-1 itself. ¶¶18

Rajesh Sultania & Anr. Vs Arun Kumar Murarka — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.01.2026 of the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-05 in CS(COMM) No. 3017/2021, closing DW-1's evidence without complete consideration of the documents already on record, should be set aside and a direction issued for limited re-examination and consequential cross-examination of DW-1. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

No procedural irregularity or illegality was found in the order dated 07.01.2026 or in the cross-examination of DW-1; accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with either.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Wherever required, references to the exhibits were correctly mentioned and noted in the cross-examination of DW-1 itself.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Even the voluntary statements of DW-1 were noted in the cross-examination as and when deemed appropriate.ratio¶¶18
On an overall appreciation of the cross-examination of DW-1, the Court was unable to appreciate the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Tushar Rao Gedela, J.), order dated 06.02.2026 in CM(M)-IPD 9/2026: Petitioners Rajesh Sultania & Anr. (through Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate) moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court)-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS(COMM) No. 3017/2021, to the limited extent of closure of defendant's (DW-1) evidence without complete consideration of the documents exhibited and already on record, and further seeking direction for limited re-examination and consequential cross-examination of DW-1. Counsel's grievance was that during cross-examination the Trial Court did not permit the witness to point out the pages of documents he relied upon. On perusal of the cross-examination of DW-1 (commencing at page 140 of the petition; exhibits DW1/1 to DW1/12 tendered, certain photocopies objected to), the Court found that references to the exhibits were correctly mentioned and noted wherever required, and that DW-1's voluntary statements were also noted as and when deemed appropriate. Finding no procedural irregularity or illegality, the Court declined to interfere with either the order dated 07.01.2026 or the cross-examination, and dismissed the petition as bereft of merits. Respondent: Arun Kumar Murarka.

¶1

$~20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M)-IPD 9/2026, CM 39/2026 & CM 40/2026

¶4

RAJESH SULTANIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate. versus

¶5

ARUN KUMAR MURARKA .....Respondent

¶6

Through:

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 06.02.2026

¶11

This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS(COMM) No. 3017/2021, to the limited extent of closure of defendant’s (DW1) evidence without complete consideration of the documents exhibited and already on record, it further seeks direction for limited re-examination and consequential cross-examination of DW-1.

¶12

This Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The learned Trial Court in the order dated 07.01.2026 nowhere notes any of the grievances now raised by the petitioner herein since it appears to be an innocuous order only, noting the proceedings of the day.

¶14

This Court has also perused the cross-examination of witness DW-1 commencing from page 140 of the petition. It is noted that all the Exhibits of DW1/1 to DW1/12 were tendered by the witness, out of which certain documents were objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff being photocopies, which are enumerated at page no.140.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 12:31:42

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the cross-examination the learned Trial Court did not permit the witness to point out the documents on which the petitioner was relying, while answering the questions put to him by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The primary grievance of the learned counsel is that in case the learned Trial Court does not permit the witness to point out the pages of documents that he is relying on, it may prejudice this case.

¶18

This Court has perused the cross-examination of DW-1. After having examined the same, this Court is unable to appreciate the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reason that wherever it was required the references to the exhibits was correctly mentioned and noted in the said cross-examination itself. In fact, this Court notes that in the cross-examination even the voluntary statement of DW-1 were also noted as and when it was deemed appropriate.

¶19

On an overall appreciation of the cross-examination of DW-1, this Court is unable to appreciate the contentions put forth today by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

In that view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to interfere with, either the order dated 07.01.2026 or the cross-examination of the DW-1 as no procedural irregularity or illegality is found.

¶21

Therefore, the petition being bereft of merits is dismissed.

¶22

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶23

FEBRUARY 6, 2026

¶24

Sumit

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 12:31:42

Rajesh Sultania & Anr. v. Arun Kumar Murarka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sultania & Anr. v. Arun Kumar Murarka

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

P. P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Durga Trading Company & Anr.

P. P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Durga Trading Company

Allied Blenders and Distillers Limited Vs Batra Brewries and Disttilleries Private Limited & Ors.

Micro Labs Limited Vs Pharma Roots Healthcare & Anr.

Satya Paul Vs Alka Industrial Corporation and Anr.

G P Moulds and Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs Surjit Moulds and Tools Pvt. Ltd.