$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010409252026 + CM(M) 1919/2026 & CM APPL. 58719/2026 PRADEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Ankita, Mr. Chetan Charitra and Mr. Parth Chhabra, Advs. versus ASHOK GARG THROUGH LRS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jitender Chaudhary and Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 24.09.2026 1. Through the present petition, the petitioner/plaintiff assails the order dated 08.08.2026 passed by the learned District Judge-11, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in CS DJ No. 478/2022, titled “Pardeep Kumar v. Ashok Garg”. 2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary detail, as necessary for the disposal of the present petition are as follows, in 2022 the petitioner instituted the underlying suit seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent/defendant. 3. Pursuant thereto, the learned Trial Court framed issues vide order dated 06.06.2023 and thereafter, on 06.11.2023, listed the matter for 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 26/09/2026 at 11:05:33 plaintiff’s evidence. 4. While the matter stood at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, on 05.08.2025, an adjournment was sought by the petitioner. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.08.2025 granted one last and final opportunity to the petitioner to tender plaintiff’s evidence subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000/-., in view of the fact that the matter had been standing at the stage of Plaintiff’s evidence since 06.11.2023. The relevant portion of the order dated 05.08.2025 reads thus: “Adjournment is sought on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff is not available today. The stage is set when the opportunity of the plaintiff to lead PE must be closed due to inordinate delay. However, considering the persistent requests of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, one last and final opportunity is being given to the plaintiff to tender his evidence, if any/PE subject to cost of Rs. 25,000/-. Part cost shall be deposited with Delhi Bar Association and part cost shall be paid to the defendant.” 5. At the next date of hearing, i.e. 27.10.2025, it was noted by the learned Trial Court that the petitioner had failed to deposit the previous cost and still sought an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel was unwell. On this date, the petitioner who appeared in person pleaded his willingness to pay the pending cost and to subject himself to cross- examination despite the absence of the main counsel. In view of these submissions of the petitioner, the learned Trial Court did not dismiss the underlying suit but imposed the following conditions while re-notifying the matter for 12:30 PM on the same date: “1) That part cost of Rs. 12,500/- imposed vide order dated 05.08.2025 be paid to the defendant today itself; 2) That remaining part cost of Rs. 12,500/- imposed vide order dated 05.08.2025 be deposited with Delhi Bar Association by the next date of 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 26/09/2026 at 11:05:33 hearing, failing which warrants of attachment may be issued; 3) Plaintiff is burdened with further cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the defendant by the next date of hearing; 4) Plaintiff shall inspect the court file and if there is any other earlier remaining cost, the same shall also be paid by the next date of hearing; 5) The plaintiff shall lead his evidence by the next date of hearing positively, failing which the present case shall be dismissed for non- prosecution; 6) The cost will be paid to defendant no.1 and the other defendants will be at liberty to obtain the same from him.” 6. When the matter was re-notified at 12:30 PM, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 27.10.2025 noted that the petitioner had duly complied with condition no.1, as imposed above. Through the same order, the petitioner was directed to fulfill the remaining aforementioned conditions by the next date of hearing i.e., 20.01.2026. 7. On 20.01.2026, PW1 tendered his evidence affidavit and was partly cross-examined. Thereafter, on 29.05.2026, the matter was listed for further cross-examination of PW1 on 08.08.2026. 8. When the matter was taken up on 08.08.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment yet again on the ground of the ill- health of the main counsel, in whose presence the cross-examination was to be conducted. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed this request and submitted that the petitioner had still not tendered cost of more than Rs. 50,000/-, which was imposed on the petitioner for causing delay. 9. The aforesaid request was declined by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 08.08.2026. The learned Trial Court also closed plaintiff’s evidence, noted that adverse inference shall be drawn against 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 26/09/2026 at 11:05:33 petitioner at the time of final judgment, closed Defendant’s Evidence and listed the matter for final arguments on 28.09.2026. 10. Importantly, on 08.08.2026 the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent did not wish to lead any evidence which resulted to the defendant’s evidence being closed. The relevant submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, as recorded vide the impugned order, reads thus: “Ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that he does not intend to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, stage of defence evidence is closed.” 11. Aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that the plaintiff’s evidence was closed and an adverse inference was directed to be drawn against the petitioner, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has caused severe prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner’s right to conclude cross-examination has been disproportionately curtailed. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the respondent forfeited the right to lead defendant’s evidence only to ensure an expeditious disposal of the underlying suit as the plaintiff’s evidence had already been closed. 14. After some arguments, the parties are ad idem that the present petition be allowed. In view of the consensus arrived at, the impugned order dated 08.08.2026 is set aside to the extent it closed plaintiff’s evidence and directed an adverse inference to be drawn against the petitioner, subject to 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 26/09/2026 at 11:05:33 payment of cost imposed by the learned Trial Court on the petitioner, that is yet to be paid, on or before the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court i.e., 28.09.2026. 15. In light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the impugned order is also set aside to the extent that defendant’s evidence was closed. Accordingly, the right of the respondent to lead defendant’s evidence stands revived. 16. By way of a last and final opportunity, the petitioner is permitted to conclude the residual cross-examination of PW1 before the learned Trial Court on 28.09.2026, or on any other date as convenient to the learned Trial Court. If the petitioner fails to appear on such scheduled date, the above right to conclude cross-examination shall stand closed without further reference to this Court. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on such scheduled date and not to seek any unnecessary adjournments thereafter. 17. This Court is also of the considered view that the underlying suit has been subjected to numerous delays. In view thereof, the learned Trial Court is requested to proceed with the underlying suit as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the exigency of its board. 18. It is made clear that this Court has not touched the merits of the underlying dispute. 19. The petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed of. AJAY DIGPAUL, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/AS/as 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 26/09/2026 at 11:05:33