Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1033
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J
Rajesh Sultania – Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar Murarka – Respondent
CM(M)-IPD 53/2025 | CM 296/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dikshant Khanna
For the Respondents: Ajay Amitabh Suman, Rishi Bansal, Shruti Manchanda
The court emphasizes that procedural technicalities regarding the filing of a list of witnesses should not prevent a case from being decided on its merits, allowing for the condonation of delay subject to costs to ensure substantive justice.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order denying the inclusion of a list of witnesses after a two-and-a-half-year delay, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The petitioner argued that the trial court's order and alleged judicial conduct prejudiced the proceedings, while the respondent contended that the delay was inexcusable and lacked a formal application for condonation. The court determined that technicalities should not impede the determination of the suit on its merits, especially where the witnesses intended to be summoned serve an official purpose, and that the delay could be addressed through the imposition of costs. The main issues addressed were whether a list of witnesses filed with significant delay should be accepted and how the trial court should handle the verification of original documents presented by witnesses. The court held that procedural justice requires the admittance of essential witnesses to enable a fair trial, provided the adverse party is compensated for the delay. The court exercised its discretion to allow the list of witnesses subject to a financial penalty. The petition was disposed of with directions for the trial court to consider the petitioner's application for document verification and to expedite the ongoing cross-examination of the witness.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts and grievances regarding witness list filing and court proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's reasoning on condoning procedural delays in the interest of deciding cases on merit. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. directions for expediting trials and final disposal of the petition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned DJ, Commercial Court-05, District Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS (COMM) No. 3017/2021 and further seeking directions to take on record the petitioner’s list of witnesses.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 to submit that the impugned order proceeds on the basis that since the list of witnesses was not filed within 15 days of framing of issues and that no sufficient cause has been shown, consequently the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner/defendant was not taken on record.
3. He also submits that on the same date i.e. 01.12.2025, the examination-in-chief of the petitioner/defendant i.e. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sultania was filed and taken on record. In fact, he submits that it is also noted that the affidavit of the said witness was tendered in examination-in-chief and who was partly cross-examined. He submits that the cross-examination is still continuing before the learned Trial Court.
4. The other issue which is agitated by learned counsel for the petitioner is in respect of the examination conducted on 01.12.2025 of the said witness DW-1 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sultania. He submits that while the documents were being tendered, though the objection in respect of the documents tendered which were all photocopies was taken by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and was noted in the order, the originals which were brought along by the witness were not noted. His grievance is that in case such noting or observation is not entered by the learned Trial Court, it would seriously prejudice his case on merits so far as evidentiary value of the documents is concerned.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently opposes the present petition.
6. He invites attention to the impugned order, particularly to second paragraph on Page 37 to submit that the manner in which the witness had produced his evidence which was, though attested by the Oath Commissioner, did not contain the signatures of the deponent at all. He submits that though a fresh affidavit was indeed filed, yet the conduct of the petitioner ought to be taken note of by this Court.
7. That apart, he also invites attention of this Court to the order dated 24.04.2023 wherein issues were framed by the Court, coupled with the direction that list of witnesses by the parties ought to be filed within 15 days of such framing of issues. He submits that despite such specific direction, the petitioner has filed the list of witnesses after a delay of 2½ years. He also further submits that the petitioner did not even take the precaution to file the application seeking condonation of delay in filing such list of witnesses and hence the impugned order cannot be interfered with by this Court.
8. He also invites attention to ground ‘A’ of the petition, whereby the petitioner has not even given the details of the delay which may have occurred in filing the list of witnesses before the learned Trial Court. That apart, he has taken serious exception to the contents of ground ‘G’ mentioned in the petition, which is as under:-
“G. BECAUSE during the examination-in-chief of DW-1, the Ld. Trial Court made unwarranted remarks such as “I am not your steno” towards the Petitioners’ counsel and reprimanded him instead of allowing him to raise legitimate objections regarding the non-recording of chief examination and the exhibiting of documents. When the Petitio
