Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
SOHN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
DILDAR SINGH – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recurrent defaults justify dismissal of applications. (Para 1 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. repeated adjournments hinder timely resolution. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. lawyer strikes not valid for defaults. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. cost implications affect a party's right to participate. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. upholding orderly court proceedings essential. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER (ORAL)
2. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff, appearing on advance intimation accepts notice and strongly opposes the application.
4. Broadly speaking, the petitioner/defendant moved the above mentioned application seeking an opportunity to recall plaintiff/PW1 for cross-examination. In the application itself, the petitioner/defendant laid grounds dealing with his failure to appear on multiple dates. After examining the entire record, learned trial court dismissed the application by way of order impugned in this petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff strongly objects to any further opportunity, disclosing that even prior to 20.11.2024, the petitioner/defendant took a number of adjournments on frivolous grounds. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that the petitioner/defendant took as
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
