Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 15804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ajay Digpaul, J
RAJINDER LAL ARORA & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
MONU DHINGRA – Respondent
CM(M)-925/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohit Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Sanjay Ghosh

When a pleading is amended leading to the framing of additional issues, the opposing party is entitled to a limited opportunity to cross-examine witnesses regarding these new issues, as fairness dictates that evidence must be challengeable on all points necessary for adjudication.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Order XIV Rule 5 - Order XVIII Rule 17 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Amendment of pleadings - Framing of additional issues - Right of cross-examination - When an amendment to a pleading results in the framing of new issues, it introduces distinct questions requiring specific adjudication - Denial of an opportunity to confront witnesses on these specific matters, which were not in existence at the time of the initial examination, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair trial. (Paras 20, 21, 26)

(B) Judicial Discretion - Supervisory jurisdiction - Procedural fairness - Courts must distinguish between the reopening of evidence for a de novo trial and the granting of a limited opportunity to cover questions arising specifically from an amendment - Refusal to allow limited cross-examination on additional issues on the grounds that prior examination was sufficient is an improper exercise of discretion when those issues were previously not before the court. (Paras 23, 26)

Facts of the case:
A civil action regarding property ownership and monetary claims was initiated. During the proceedings, the initiating party sought and was granted an amendment to the pleading to refine the quantification of monetary damages. Following this, the trial court framed additional issues pertinent to these new claims. The defendants requested an opportunity to recall witnesses for limited cross-examination regarding these additional issues, but this request was denied by the trial court, citing that sufficient opportunity to examine witnesses had already been availed during the earlier stages of the trial.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the framing of additional issues serves as an acknowledgment that substantive new questions have arisen. It held that the conclusion that prior examination was sufficient ignores the distinction between the original scope of the dispute and the expanded scope resulting from the amendment. The court determined that denying the limited request effectively deprived the petitioners of an opportunity to address evidence on issues that were formerly absent.

Issues: Whether the court below was legally justified in denying a limited opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on additional issues that were framed following the amendment of the pleading.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to cross-examine is an integral facet of a fair judicial process. Where a pleading is amended and subsequent issues are framed, the adverse party has an inherent right to test evidence concerning those specific matters, as such points could not have been adequately addressed in earlier stages of the trial.

Result: Petition allowed; the order denying cross-examination regarding additional issues was set aside, and the court below was directed to facilitate a limited opportunity for cross-examination strictly confined to such new issues.

##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, Hereinafter “learned Trial Court”, in CS No. 839/2017, titled “Monu

Dhingra v. Rajinder Lal Arora & Ors.”.

4. The underlying dispute pertains to the ownership and possession of

the property i.e., Shop No. 45-A, Ground Floor, Khan Market, New Delhi, Hereinafter “subject property”

The petitioners contested the suit by filing their written statement disputing

the respondent’s claim over the subject property.

5. On 09.10.2018, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

“ISSUES-

1. Whether the suit property Shop no. 45-A, Khan Market, New Delhi,

belongs to the Joint Family as alleged by the defendants? OPD

2. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is bad for want of proper Court fee? OPD.

4. Whether plaintiff is a permissive occupier/licensee in the half back

portion of the shop no. 45-A, Khan Market, New Delhi? OPP.

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction against the

defendant thereby directing the defendants to remove themselves from

the suit property? OPP

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs for damages/mesne profits

along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till

actual possession is handed over? OPP

7. Relief.

No other issue arise or press.

Issue of Court fee be taken as preliminary issue.

6. Whereafter the respondent/plaintiff led evidence and concluded the

examination of his witnesses. During the course of trial, respondent filed an

application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19083

seeking amendment of the plaint, particularly with regard to the relief of

damages/mesne profits. The prayer in the said application is stated as:

“a) Permit the amendment of the prayer in the plaint to read as: “(e)

payment or a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) per month

and or any other amount which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

3 Hereinafter “CPC”

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:GAURAV CM(M) 925/2026 Page 2 of 9

SHARMA

Signing Date:30.07.2026

19:45:10

##PAGE3##

proper”.

7. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court on

15.03.2022. Vide the said order dated 15.03.2022, the petitioners were

permitted to cross examine the respondent, only to the limited aspect of

recovery of damages as was prayed in the amended plaint.

8. Consequent upon the amendment, the petitioners filed an application

under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of additional issues. The said

application was allowed vide order dated 07.05.2025, and the learned Trial

Court framed three additional issues relating to the respondent/plaintiff’s

claim for damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month,

sufficiency of court fees and limitation in respect of the amended monetary

claim. The operative portion entailing the additional issues framed by the

learned Trial Court is reproduced hereunder:

“Additional issues

6 A. Whether plaintiff is entitled to damage/mesne profits from the

period 2001 till date at the rate of Rs.2 lacs per month? OPP

6 B. Whether plaintiff has paid court fee for the relief (e)? OPD

6 C. Whether the prayer for damages/mesne profit of Rs.2lacs per

month is barred by the law of limitation? OPD”

9. Thereafter, the petitioners sought a limited opportunity to further

cross-examine the respondent’s witnesses confined to the additional issues

so framed. The said request came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court

by an order dated 29.10.2025.

10. Subsequently, the petitioners preferred an application under Order

XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of the respondent’s witnesses for further

cross-examination on the additional issues. The learned Trial Court, by order

dated 20.02.2026, dismissed the said application. Relevant paras of the

impugned order dated 20.02.2026 read as under:

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:GAURAV CM(M) 925/2026 Page 3 of 9

SHARMA

Signing Date:30.07.2026

19:45:10

##PAGE4##

“11. It is the contention on behalf of plaintiff that the additional issues

were framed on the basis of amended plaint only because there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 15804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIAjay Digpaul, JRAJINDER LAL ARORA & ORS. – AppellantVersusMONU DHINGRA – RespondentCM(M)-925/2026

When a pleading is amended leading to the framing of additional issues, the opposing party is entitled to a limited opportunity to cross-examine witnesses regarding these new issues, as fairness dictates that evidence must be challengeable on all points necessary for adjudication.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ajay Digpaul, J
RAJINDER LAL ARORA & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
MONU DHINGRA – Respondent
CM(M)-925/2026