$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 24^th March, 2026 + CM(M) 611/2026, CM APPL. 18558/2026 & CM APPL. 18559/2026 M/S SHREE KAILASH PREM FURNITURE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sazid S.R.Shah, Mr. Syed Bashar Afzal, Mr. Qadir Javed and Mr. Akash Saini, Advocates.

versus SHAGUN FURNITURE .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

ORDER (Oral)

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 12^th February, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS SCJ 1278/2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 of the Code of CivilProcedure,1908,seekingrecallingoforderdated21^stJanuary,2025,has been dismissed.

3. Vide Order dated 21^st January, 2025 the right of the petitioner/defendants to lead defence evidence has been closed.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures which is against the facts on record. The evidence of the petitioner has been closed without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in absence of such an opportunity to lead evidence, grave prejudice would be caused to the case of the petitioner.

6. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 21^st January, 2025 in this petition. The order dated 21^st January, 2025 reads as follows:

“Matter is pending at the stage of DE for the last one year.

Neither of the defendants have led any evidence so far and even today an adjournment is sought.

Consideringthe conductofthedefendants,noleniency is warranted.

Accordingly, the right of the defendants to lead Defence Evidence stands closed.”

7. Therelevantportionoftheimpugnedorderdated12^thFebruary,2026is reproduced as follows:

“Vide this application, the defendant No.1 is seeking recalling of order dated 21.01.2025 passed by this court followed by liberty to lead defence evidence.

It is submitted by Ld. counsel for defendant No.1 that the defendant no. 1 had filed his evidence by way of affidavit on 03.07.2024 itself,however,the saidfact wasnotrecorded inthe ordersheet and consequently on 21.01.2025, his opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed. It is further submitted by Ld. counsel for defendant that the order dated 21.01.2025 may be recalled and he may be granted an opportunity to lead DE.

Per-contra, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that the opportunity of the defendant to lead DE was closed after giving several opportunities, therefore, no further opportunity may be granted to the defendant to lead DE. It is further submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that the present application has also been filed by the defendant after the expiry of07monthsfromthedateoftheorder,therefore,itisfiledonly withtheintenttodelaythetrialandisanabuseoftheprocessof law.

Perusal of the record reveals that the matter was fixed for DEvideorderdated11.03.2024andthedefendantwasdirected to file the evidence by way of affidavit along with list of witnesses within 15 days. Thereafter, on 25.04.2024, the defendant No.1 sought time for complying with order dated 11.03.2024. Subsequently, on 09.05.2024, again adjournment was sought on behalf of defendant No.1 for leading DE and no evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of defendant No.1. Thereafter, on 21.01.2025, yet again a request for adjournment was made on behalf of defendant No.1, however, considering the conduct of the defendant No.1, Ld. Predecessor of this court closed the opportunity to lead DE and matter was fixed for final arguments. On 17.07.2025, final arguments were heard by this court and matter was adjourned for clarifications/orders to 23.07.2025 however, on t