$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010287572026 + CM(M) 1425/2026 & CM APPL. 42278/2026 SH RAJ KUMAR MALHOTRA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. H S Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sharat Kapoor, Mr. Shubh Kapoor, Mr. Anirudh Dusaj, Ms. Surpreet Kaur, Mr. Kartik Goyal and Mr. Bhavyah Garg, Advocates. versus SH IQBAL CHAND MALHOTRA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ved Parkash Sharma, Mr. Tara Shankar Jha, Ms. Tanya and Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Sachdeva, Government Pleader and Ms. Himanshi Singh and Ms. Monalisha Pradhan, Advocates for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. Through the present petition, the petitioners/defendants seek to assail the orders dated 19.01.2024, 28.03.2025 and 27.11.2025 passed in CS SCJ 75/2015 and CS SCJ 56387/2016. The learned trial court vide order dated 19.01.2024 closed the right of the petitioners to cross-examine PW-1, vide order dated 28.03.2025 closed the DE, and vide order dated 27.11.2025 dismissed the application under Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:16:01 1908 for appointment of Local Commissioner. 2. The respondent no. 1 instituted the underlying civil suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of premises bearing No. F- 28, Malhotra Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 3. It is stated that the petitioners are senior citizens suffering from severe medical ailments which significantly impede the petitioners’ day to day lives. Petitioner no. 1 is stated to be suffering from Myasthenia Gravis which is an auto-immune muscular disorder since 2018 and has been taking regular medical treatment for the same. Similarly, petitioner no. 2 is stated to be suffering from episodes of seizures accompanied with Metabolic Encephalopathy and Right Periorbital Hematoma since November 2024. Despite this, the petitioners are stated to have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit on 28.03.2025. 4. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 19.01.2024 noted that the proxy counsel appearing for the petitioners had no instructions, and that sufficient opportunities had been provided for cross-examining PW-1. Thus, the rights of the petitioners to cross-examine PW-1 was closed. The matter was then posted for 23.03.2024 and PW-1 was subsequently discharged. 5. The learned trial court vide impugned order 28.03.2025 noted that multiple opportunities had been granted to the petitioners to lead DE. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of contemporaneous medical documents, and also questioned the veracity of the attached medical documents. In view of the same, the court closed the petitioners’ DE. 6. Aggrieved, the petitioners on 26.09.2025 preferred an application seeking recall of the order dated 28.03.2025 inter-alia contending that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:16:01 petitioners suffer from severe health ailments and closure of DE would have adverse consequences on the trial. On similar grounds, the petitioners also preferred an application under Order XXVI of CPC seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner for recording of the petitioners’ evidence. 7. Both the applications came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2025. The learned trial court noted that the petitioners had been offered multiple opportunities to lead evidence and had been consistently taking adjournments on account of their old age and ill health. However, the attached medical documents were only till January 2025, and the absence of any contemporaneous medical documents negated the plea of persistent and chronic health issues. 8. With respect to the application under Order XXVI for appointment of local commissioner for recording of evidence, the court found the application to be premised on the ability of the petitioners to lead DE. Since the DE has been closed, the application was ipso facto rendered infructuous. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial court has erred in taking a myopic view and holding that the annexed medical documents are only till January 2025. He submits that the medical documents show a persistent and serious health condition from 2018 till April 2025, and that the course of treatment for such conditions spans across months. 10. He further submits that learned trial court has erred in taking a dichotomous stand wherein the evidence by way of affidavit is taken on record, however, the petitioners are not allowed to lead any evidence from This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:16:01 the same. The closure of the right to lead DE has substantially closed the petitioners’ right to lead evidence. Such an order has the effect of rendering the petitioners’ case hollow, and that too for reasons beyond their control. 11. Lastly, he also submits that this Court, having regard to justifiable reasons has the power to grant the petitioners one last and final opportunity and do complete justice. To buttress this argument, reliance is placed on the judgment of Deepak v Ramesh Sethi (2022) SCC OnLine Del 1321 and Ankur Namdeo v Rameshchand Shukla & Anr. SLP(C) No. 21811/2023. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has vehemently opposed petitioners and has stated that the order sheets clearly reflect that due concessions were given to the petitioners’ ill health, and the impugned orders have been passed after giving numerous opportunities to the petitioners. 13. He further submits that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution does not act as a court of appeal, and thus, cannot reappreciate or substitute its views on facts such as delay, which otherwise have been duly considered, and dealt with by the learned trial court. The scope of this Court is restricted only to issues of patent perversity and lack of jurisdiction, which is wholly inapplicable to the facts at hand. 14. Heard. Perused the records. 15. During the course of the arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that he does not wish to press his challenge to the impugned orders dated 19.01.2024 and 27.11.2025. 16. This Court deems it apposite to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Estralla Rubber v Das Estate (P) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 and Garment This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:16:01 Craft v Prakash Chand (2022) 4 SCC 181 noted that the Hight Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can set aside the orders of a court or a tribunal if there is a flagrant violation of natural justice. 17. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are senior citizens who are facing severe health ailments and the impugned orders dated 28.03.2025 has an effect of depriving the petitioners of any legal defense in their trial. Such orders will effectively deprive the petitioners of their rights under principles of natural justice. 18. That being so, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 28.03.2025 is set aside. The learned trial court is directed to have regard to the petitioners’ conditions and constraints, and allow the petitioners one last and final opportunity to lead their DE. 19. It is made clear that the date, time and medium of such opportunity will be decided by the learned trial court as per their convenience, and the parties are directed to make themselves available, physically or through video conference, on that date. 20. Accordingly, the present petition, is allowed and the order dated 28.03.2025 is set aside and quashed. Pending applications, if any stands disposed of. 21. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the underlying suit proceedings. AJAY DIGPAUL, J AUGUST 5, 2026 Sk/sg This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:16:01