$~O-7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010440892026 + CM(M)-IPD 47/2026 and CM 234/2026, CM 235/2026, CM 236/2026 Date of Decision: 24.09.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: DR DEV RAJ DAV SR SEC PUBLIC SCHOOL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Mahindro, Mr. Rohan Taneja, Mr. Deepak Kumar Chauhan and Mr. Raghav Kalra, Advocates. versus DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY AND ANR .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) The present petitioner seek to challenge the order dated 09.09.2026 passed by the Trial Court (“Impugned Order”), whereby, the Court has refused to defer the cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses no. 1 and 2. 2. The order passed by the Trial Cout clearly recognizes that there is no prohibition for recording and concluding the evidence of a witness on the same date. It is, thus, seen that the Court has considered the submissions Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:28.09.2026 17:18:49 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signature Not Verified made by the parties assuming as if the cross-examination can take place on multiple days. 3. The primary submission made by Mr. Ankur Mahindro, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the veracity of issue nos. 2 and 3 framed by the Trial Court regarding concealment of the material disclosure would not be adequately decided unless the plaintiff’s witnesses are granted opportunity to produce the relevant documents and thereafter enable the defendant to cross-examine them. It is contended that in paragraph no.17 of the evidence of PW-1, it has come on record that he did not have any knowledge as to from where the legal cell had come to know in the year 2017 and 2020 about the running of the defendant-School. He further stated that he may inform the same after checking the record of the legal cell. 4. Mr. Mahindro’s submission, therefore, mainly rests on the aforesaid position of the witness. According to him, if the hearing would have been deferred and the witnesses were granted enough time to produce the record, the same would have been an appropriate recourse to unearth the real controversy involved in the matter. 5. Mr. Mohindro has also placed reliance on the decision dated 11.07.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Leo Readlines Pvt. Ltd.1 and another decision passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the Sunita vs. Premwati.2 6. Mr. Mahindro also submits that if the opportunity is granted, the petitioner would confine his cross-examination only qua questions the answers to which were not given owing to the record not being available 1 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4464. 2 2022 6 High Court Cases (Del) 537. Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:28.09.2026 17:18:49 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signature Not Verified with the witnesses. 7. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Mahindro and have also perused the record. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.,3 has explained the scope of powers exercisable under Article 227 of the Constitution in the following words: “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 9. Further, in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel,4 the Supreme Court held as under: “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand Goel v. Garment Craft, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the 3 (2001) 8 SCC 97. 4 (2022) 4 SCC 181. Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:28.09.2026 17:18:49 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signature Not Verified determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. [Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar, (2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” [Emphasis supplied] 10. In the facts of the present case, reference can be made to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be made. Illustration (g) under the said provision provides that the Court may presume that evidence which could be, but is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. 11. In the instant case, the defendant has been duly afforded the opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff’s witnesses to the extent of the evidence produced in the examination-in-chief. If at all documents have been averted to by the witness but were ultimately not produced, conclusions, inter alia, including those under illustration (g) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be drawn by the concerned Trial Court, at the appropriate stage, if so warranted. 12. So far as the decision in the case of Imperia Structures Ltd. is concerned, the same seems to have been passed under the circumstances where the manner in which the cross-examination had taken place was found to have denied the substantial right of the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses. Similarly, in the case of Sunita, the facts and circumstances Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:28.09.2026 17:18:49 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signature Not Verified therein are completely distinct. 13. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the scope of scrutiny which can be undertaken under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Impugned Order does not deserve to be interdicted. 14. Accordingly, the petition, along with pending applications, stands dismissed (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 24, 2026 Aks/Rao Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:28.09.2026 17:18:49 Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV