$~61

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 28.11.2025

+ CM(M) 2308/2025, CM APPL. 74671/2025 & CM APPL. 74670/2025

SANDEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Om Prakash Mishra and Mr. Mayank Pandey, Advocates with petitioner in person.

versus

KAPTAIN SINGH RATHI THROUGH LRS .....Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has assailed orders dated 07.11.2025 and 18.11.2025 of the learned trial court. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner/defendant at length, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. Rather, the present petition is completely frivolous and filed with oblique purposes.

2. By way of order dated 07.11.2025, evidence of petitioner/defendant was closed as despite last and final opportunity granted on multiple occasions, no evidence was led. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking reopening of the evidence of the defendant. That application was dismissed by way of detailed order dated 18.11.2025.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant contends that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and petitioner/defendant deserves further opportunity to lead evidence. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner/defendant that since the matter had been referred to mediation centre, the evidence ought not to have been closed by the learned trial court. No other submission has been advanced.

4. On being pointed out the false statement made before the trial court by the petitioner/defendant as recorded in the impugned order as well as the conduct of learned counsel before the trial court, learned counsel explains that it is just that he habitually speaks with high pitch. Be that as it may, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner/defendant made a false statement before the trial court.

5. For convenient analysis, the entire impugned order dated 18.11.2025 is extracted below:-

“An application under section 151 CPC to reopen the defendant evidence is filed on behalf of defendant.

Heard. Perused.

It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that on the previous date i.e 07.11.2025, the matter was listed for defence evidence but this court closed the defence evidence after noting that several adjournments have been granted for defence evidence. It is further submitted that the previous counsel has submitted wrongly before the court that the settlement has arrived at between the parties. However, it is submitted that defendant was present in person on 07.11.2025, objected to the same and informed this court that there was no settlement between the parties. It is submitted that now the defendant has changed his counsel and that in the interest of justice, order dated 07.11.2025 be recalled and the defendant be given an opportunity to lead defence evidence.

Per-contra, it is submitted on behalf of plaintiff that present application is vexatious, frivolous and is based on entirely false facts. It is submitted that on 07.11.2025, it was defendant himself who had submitted before this court that settlement has been arrived. Further, it is submitted that the present application is filed only with the intention to delay the present case.

Heard.

This suit was filed in the year 2016. It is a matter of record that the present matter is pending for defence evidence since 05.04.2023. Since then, repeated adjournments have been sought on behalf of the defendant on different grounds on 24.07.2023, 14.09.2023, 19.10.2023, 19,12,2023 and 14.05.2024. On 18.03.2025, it was specifically mentioned by the Ld Predecessor of this court, that if no settlement arrived at, the defence evidence be led. On the next date of hearing, 30.07.2025, again adjournment was sought on behalf of defendant on the ground that the matter is likely to be settled. On the next date of hearing, i.e 07.11.2025, it

was the defendant who submitted bef