$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010376162026 + CM(M) 1797/2026, CM APPL. 54124/2026 & CM APPL. 54125/2026 PUNEET GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar Goel, Advocate versus NAVEEN GULATI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gaur and Mr. Damanpreet Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 14.08.2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is assailing the orders dated 08.07.2026 and 20.07.2026 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS (Comm.) No. 53/2025 titled as “Shri Naveen Gulati vs. Shri Puneet Gupta”, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking to summon two witnesses, and thereafter, dismissed the petitioner's application seeking recall of the order dated 08.07.2026. 2. In the underlying commercial suit, the respondent/plaintiff, proprietor of M/s Balaji Sales Corporation, seeks recovery of Rs.19,40,466/- along with interest, from the petitioner, proprietor of M/s D & D Metal. It is averred that the respondent supplied waste paper material to the petitioner at 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 18/08/2026 at 11:19:08 his request and that a running account was maintained between the parties, under which a sum of Rs.14,70,050/- remained outstanding and payable by the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner entered appearance and filed his Written Statement on 26.04.2025, admitting liability only to the extent of Rs.2,58,683/- as remaining payable to the respondent, and disputing the balance of the amount claimed. 4. The learned Trial Court vide order 15.09.2025, allowed respondent’s application, filed under Order XIII-A read with Section 151 CPC, seeking recovery of the admitted sum of Rs. 2,58,683/- through a summary decree passed against the petitioner, and in favour of the respondent. By the same order, the learned Trial Court fixed the matter on 16.10.2025 for framing of issues. 5. Thereafter, on 16.10.2025, the learned Trial Court framed two issues and appointed a local commissioner for the purpose of recording evidence of both parties, in terms of procedure laid down in Order 18 Rule 4 and Order 15A Rule 6(1) CPC. In addition, the learned Trial Court fixed the fee payable by the parties for recording of each witness, and laid down guidelines to govern the recording of evidence and cross-examination within the stipulated time of two months from the date of this order. 6. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.02.2026, allowed the petitioner’s evidence affidavit dated, the local commissioner’s proceeding sheet and statement of plaintiff witness-01 dated 21.01.2026, to be placed on record before the Court. 7. The learned Trial Court, on 23.03.2026, recorded that the plaintiff evidence had concluded on 21.01.2026, and the matter was still pending 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 18/08/2026 at 11:19:08 before the local commissioner, at the stage of cross-examination of the defence evidence due to respondent’s inability to conclude cross- examination within the stipulated time. As a result, the cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the respondent and final opportunity was granted to the respondent to conclude the same within 15 days. 8. In the local commissioner’s proceedings sheet dated 04.06.2026, the local commissioner recorded that cross-examination of the defence witness- 01 & defence witness-02 was concluded, and the witnesses were accordingly discharged. The local commissioner further recorded that the petitioner had failed to pay the fees for recording of his witnesses, as per the directions of the Learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.10.2025. 9. In the interregnum, the petitioner preferred an application dated 16.06.2026 before the learned Trial Court, filed under Section 151 CPC, seeking permission to summon two witnesses, namely, an official from the Goods and Service Tax Department, and an authorized representative of a third party i.e., M/s Vishal Papertech (India) Limited for the purpose of proving the veracity of the debit notes, which were as per respondent’s claims, purportedly falsified and manipulated by the petitioner. 10. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 08.07.2026 dismissed petitioner’s abovementioned application on the ground that while framing issues and appointing the local commissioner for recording of evidence vide order dated 16.10.2025, both parties were afforded one month's time to lead and conclude their respective evidence. The learned Court further noted that the plaintiff's evidence stood concluded as on 21.01.2026, and the matter has, since then, continued to linger at the stage of the defendant's evidence, and in addition, the petitioner’s proxy 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 18/08/2026 at 11:19:08 counsel had failed to provide a reasonable justification for non-payment of local commissioner’s fees for recording his evidence. 11. Aggrieved by the learned Trial Court’s order dated 08.07.2026, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, on 17.07.2026, seeking recall/review of the same order. 12. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.07.2026, dismissed the petitioner’s recall application dated 17.07.2026, and stated that the order dated 08.07.2026 was well reasoned and therefore, required no reconsideration or review. By the same order, the learned Trial Court fixed the matter for final arguments on 17.08.2026. 13. In these circumstances, the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the bona fide conduct of the petitioner is evident throughout the proceedings, by having promptly filed the written statement and the affidavit of his defence witnesses, and ensuring due presence before the local commissioner to proceed with recording of defence evidence. It is submitted that the delay which occurred on earlier occasions, is solely attributable to the respondent, for which cost of Rs. 10,000/- was once imposed upon the respondent, by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.03.2026. 15. Learned counsel further submits that while the justification regarding non-payment of local commissioner’s fee and absence of petitioner’s main counsel on the date of hearing dated 08.07.2026, was detailed in petitioner’s recall application dated 17.07.2026, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.07.2026 rejected these grounds in a mechanical and non-speaking 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 18/08/2026 at 11:19:08 manner, without addressing the petitioner’s contentions. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought one final opportunity to summon the two witnesses, the Goods and Service Tax Department official, and an authorized representative of M/s Vishal Papertech (India) Limited, for examination before the local commissioner. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was, from the very inception of the proceedings, aware of the existence of the debit notes in question, and yet failed to summon the concerned witnesses at the appropriate stage to prove their authenticity. It is further submitted that a copy of the application dated 16.06.2026, seeking permission to summon the said two witnesses, was never furnished to the respondent, thereby denying him an opportunity to rebut its contents, and that the application, having been preferred under Section 151 CPC rather than Order XVI Rule 1(2) CPC, is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 17. Heard. Perused the record. 18. This Court is of the considered view that, while the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court for declining to entertain the petitioner's application dated 16.06.2026 are not without force, the consequence of complete foreclosure of the petitioner's opportunity to summon witnesses whose testimony relates directly to the debit notes which form the basis of his claim, is disproportionately balanced against the petitioner’s substantive rights of leading evidence. 19. In addition, it is observed that the underlying suit remains, admittedly, at the stage of conclusion of defence evidence, and final arguments have not been addressed. Hence, in the interest of justice, affording the petitioner one final opportunity to summon the two witnesses in question would cause no 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 18/08/2026 at 11:19:08 prejudice to the respondent beyond that of a short procedural delay, capable of being adequately compensated in costs. 20. In view of the aforesaid, this Court feel it appropriate set aside the impugned orders dated 08.07.2026 and 20.07.2026, and to allow the request of the petitioner to summon the concerned witnesses, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Delhi High Court Bar Association, Account bearing No. 15530100000478 (IFSC Code: UCBA0001553) maintained with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, payable by petitioner within a week from today. 21. It has also been informed by learned counsel for the parties that the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court is 17.08.2026. In view thereof, this Court feels it appropriate to adjourn the next date of hearing to any other date as per the convenience of the learned Trial Court, for the purpose of summoning the concerned witnesses and thereafter fixing a date on which the petitioner is to carry out the examination of the aforesaid witnesses before the local commissioner, in accordance with law. 22. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present petition along with pending applications, if any, is dismissed. AJAY DIGPAUL, J AUGUST 14, 2026/ar/os 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 18/08/2026 at 11:19:08