$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010311142026 + CM(M) 1522/2026, CM APPL. 45267/2026 & CM APPL. 45268/2026 TEERTHANKAR MAHAVEER UNIVERSITY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchin Midha, Adv. versus CORPORATESERVE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the learned DJ (Commercial Court-03) Patiala House Court in 17 CS (COMM) 38/2021 whereby the learned trial court closed the petitioner/defendant’s right to lead DE and posted the matter to 14.08.2026 for final arguments. 2. The respondent instituted the underlying commercial suit for recovery seeking Rs. 37,87,600 on account of supply of ERP software, against which, the petitioner filed their written statement contending that the suit was vexatious and the respondent had failed to satisfy their obligations in the decided timeline. 3. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on 04.05.2022 and the suit 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 13/08/2026 at 11:02:40 came to be decreed vide order dated 17.08.2022. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2023. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in an RFA bearing no. RFA(COMM) 151/2023, which came to be allowed vide order dated 28.07.2023, and the suit was restored to its original number, subject to cost of Rs. 1,00,000. 4. It stems from the record that after the suit got restored, the matter was listed for DE on 11.11.2025, and on account of repeated adjournments and requests for indulgence by the petitioner on 08.01.2026 and 25.02.2026, the matter had not proceeded. The learned trial court on 25.02.2026 accepted the request for adjournment by the petitioner and posted the matter for 02.04.2026 after imposing costs of Rs. 5,000. 5. The matter was fixed for DE on 02.04.2026, however, the petitioner/ defendant’s witness was unavailable, and the petitioner sought for an adjournment. The learned trial court noted that the matter had been fixed for DE since 11.11.2025 and that the petitioner had been given four opportunities to lead DE, however, the petitioner had repeatedly failed to avail the same. Resultantly, the learned trial court closed the right of the petitioner to lead DE. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has erred in failing to consider that any delay is because of factors beyond the control of the petitioner. Relying on the annexed medical documents, he has submitted that the wife of the petitioner’s counsel is suffering from cancer, and was undergoing a six-month treatment at Medanta Hospital. Furthermore, on 02.04.2026, the petitioner’s witness, 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 13/08/2026 at 11:02:40 who is an ex-employee of the petitioner, had to urgently go to Moradabad and Vijaywada, thus, the absence from court is completely unintentional, and unforeseen. 7. He has further submitted that despite the aforementioned unforeseen and emergent circumstances, the petitioner has continuously displayed diligent conduct by filing his evidence by way of affidavit on 08.01.2026, and has ensured that the case does not get stalled or stagnated. In view of such circumstances, the learned trial court has gravely erred in closing the substantive right of the petitioner to lead DE, thereby rendering his defense in the suit hollow. 8. Lastly, he has also made an oral request that due to an inadvertent error, he has not been able to place on record before the learned trial court a Letter of Authorization, which has otherwise been mentioned in his evidence affidavit. He submits that the document is not a new document and bringing the same on record will not prejudice the respondent. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and has taken into account all the circumstances as stated by the petitioner and has granted numerous opportunities. The petitioner cannot be allowed to benefit from his laxity after having delayed the trial for more than five months. Stemming from the same vein, he has submitted that the petitioner has, due to his negligence, once been proceeded ex-parte, and that the conduct of the petitioner since the initiation of the case has been to delay the trial. The intent of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is speedy and expeditious disposal of the cases, and the petitioner, through his negligent conduct has rendered this intent otiose as the underlying suit has been pending since 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 13/08/2026 at 11:02:40 2021. 10. He has also submitted that the document sought to be brought on record upon an oral request is yet another dilatory tactic and is indicative of the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner in this case. He has submitted that the petitioner has not shown any reason as to why the document was not brought on record earlier. 11. Heard. Perused the records. 12. This Court is of the opinion that the equity and the spirit of justice ought to be the cornerstone of all orders, and thus, in that spirit, a balance needs to be struck between substantive rights of parties and deterrence from repeated absence and dereliction of court orders. 13. In light of the same, and subject to cost of Rs. 50,000/- with Rs. 25,000/- payable to the respondent and Rs. 25,000/- payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association, Account bearing No. 15530100000478 (IFSC Code: UCBA0001553) maintained with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi within a period of one week from today, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead DE and ensure expeditious cross examination of his witness. Furthermore, the Letter of Authority stated to be a part of the documents filed along with the Evidence Affidavit is directed to be taken on record. 14. It is made clear that no adjournments will be taken by the parties, and that no further opportunities shall be given to lead DE. 15. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. AJAY DIGPAUL, J AUGUST 11, 2026/AS/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 13/08/2026 at 11:02:40