$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 261/2021 & I.A. 12504/2023, I.A. 7012/2025, O.A. 47/2025 PANKAJ AGARWAL & ORS. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Mr. Vedansh Vashisht and Mr. Swapan Singhal, Advs. versus KAJAL JINDAL .....Defendant Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026 I.A. 30571/2025 (by defendant under Section 151 CPC seeking directions from recording of evidence)

1. The present application has been filed seeking examination of the witness i.e. Ms. Jyotsna Podar through video conferencing.

2. Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the witness/Ms. Jyotsna Podar is a resident of Mumbai and is presently aged about 70 years.

3. On account of her old age and age related ailments, it is not possible for her to be physically present in this Court premises for recording of her evidence. Hence, a prayer is made for examining the witness through video conferencing.

4. The application is however, opposed by Mr. Sameer Vashisht, learned counsel for the plaintiffs. He submits that the present application has been made onlyto delaythe proceedings.

5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that Ms. Jyotsna Podar has been cited as a witness in the list of witnesses and as per the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “the rules”), she can be examined through video conferencing.

6. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the learned Local Commissioner is directed to record the evidence of the witness namely, Ms.

Jyotsna Podar in terms of the rules.

7. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 10305/2025 (by plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 11 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for issuance of commission to examine the accounts)

8. At request, list for hearing on 13.07.2026.

I.A. 44576/2024 (under Section 151 CPC seeking directions)

9. Mr. Endlaw, learned counsel for the defendant/applicant invites attention of the Court to the prayer clause of the said application to contend that the first three prayers have already been allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2025, therefore, he is confining his submission only to prayer clause (d) of the said application.

10. He contends that the deceased father of the parties was having following three flats in his name which he had booked with Jaypee Greens.

The details of said three flats are mentioned hereinbelow:

i) Unit No. A4-1001 in Wish Town Klassic at Jaypee Greens, Noida, allotted vide letter dated 16.02.2009 bearing reference no.

JGMKCA041001 under Customer ID: JGMKCA041001 [Sl. No. (i)

of Schedule I to the Plaint];

ii) Unit No. J 1-1004 in Imperial Court at Jaypee Greens, Noida, allotted vide letter dated 25.04.20 II bearing reference no. JGNIMPO 11004 under Customer ID: JGNIMPO11004 [Sl. No. (ii)

of Schedule I to the Plaint] and;

iii) Unit No. IMP002404, Imperial Court 2, Jaypee Greens, Sector 128, Noida-201301, allotted vide letter dated 30.12.2013 bearing reference no. 47957/30 1334/IMP0022404 under Customer ID:

JGNIMP022404 [Sl. no. (vi) of Schedule I to the Plaint]”

11. Mr. Endlaw submits that there are certain maintenance and other dues with regard to the aforesaid three flats and liberty may be granted to the defendant/applicant to pay for the same from the funds available in the joint bank account of late Kamal Kishore Agarwal and the defendant, maintained with Standard Chartered Bank.

12. He submits that a Local Commissioner can be appointed to obtain the cheques from the defendant for such dues to be paid to the builder.

13. He further contends that the Local Commissioner may also be authorised to take possession of the said flats from the builder after clearing the dues, if at all the same can be delivered by the builder, and the keys of said flats may be deposited byhim in the Court.

14. The said proposal is not opposed by Mr. Vashisht, learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

15. A