When Strategy Becomes Obstruction: Delhi High Court Slams Attempt to Delay Decade-Old Civil Suit

In a stern reminder that the court’s patience is not inexhaustible, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Sandeep Kumar, decrying it as "completely frivolous" and aimed at dragging out a civil suit that has been pending for nearly a decade.

Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the matter, not only upheld the trial court's decision to close the petitioner's right to lead evidence but also took a strong stance against the conduct of the petitioner’s legal representation, emphasizing that judicial decorum is non-negotiable—regardless of the court's placement in the judicial hierarchy.

A Timeline of Tactics: The Background

The underlying dispute, dating back to 2016, had seen the trial court set aside multiple dates for the defendant to present evidence since April 2023. Despite being granted repeated adjournments on the premise of potential settlements, the petitioner failed to lead evidence.

The situation reached a breaking point on November 7, 2025, when the petitioner made an explicit statement before the trial court that a settlement had been reached. When probed further, however, the petitioner retracted this statement, admitting that no such settlement existed and that the claim was based merely on a verbal discussion with a former counsel.

The "Frivolous" Allegations

Following the closure of his evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to reopen the proceedings. The trial court dismissed this application, labeling it vexatious. The High Court, reviewing the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, found no perversity in the trial court’s order.

Justice Kathpalia noted that the strategy appeared to be a calculated effort to "protract the trial" through a series of "false statements" submitted under oath.

A Breach of Decorum

Beyond the procedural delays, the High Court expressed deep concern regarding the conduct of the petitioner's counsel in the district court. Reports indicated that the counsel, when faced with the trial court's refusal to grant further delays, allegedly adopted an intimidating, high-pitched tone, referencing his own practice at the Supreme Court to try and overawe the judge.

When offered passovers to prepare for arguments later the same day, the counsel purportedly refused to argue, audaciously suggesting that the court was "free to hear arguments" on its own.

Key Observations

The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for litigants and counsel who attempt to use the judicial system as a tool for delay. Justice Kathpalia’s observations underscore the court’s duty to uphold fairness:

• "The present petition is completely frivolous and filed with oblique purposes."
• "Justice should serve both to the plaintiff and the defendant. In this case as already stated number of adjournments have been sought on behalf of defendant and today also false submissions by way of the present application has been made before this court. Thus, the interest of justice should serve the interest of the plaintiff."
• "A judge is a judge, wherever she/he is placed in the judicial hierarchy and cannot be treated in the manner as was done in the present case."

Final Outcome: Remorse and Withdrawal

Upon facing the sharp observations of the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner expressed remorse for his conduct. With the petitioner present in the courtroom, he sought permission to withdraw the petition entirely rather than face a formal dismissal on merits.

The petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The case now returns to the trial court, where final arguments are scheduled to proceed on December 2, 2025. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that "interest of justice" does not become a euphemism for the convenience of one party at the expense of another.