$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010462322026 + CM(M) 2135/2026, CM APPL. 66571/2026 & CM APPL. 66572/2026 SANJAY KUMAR, SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S KANHIYA GARMENTS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kanishk Ahuja, Adv. versus M/S P.P. TEXOFAB PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Kumar, Adv. (through VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 25.09.2026 1. Through the present petition, the petitioner/defendant is assailing the orders dated 19.08.2026 and 12.08.2026, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-03, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in CS (COMM) 62/26, titled “M/S P.P. Texofab Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Kanhaiya Garments”. 2. The facts emerging from the record are as follows, in 2026 the respondent/plaintiff instituted the underlying commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 6,64,707/- with pendente lite and future interest. 3. On 12.08.2026, when the matter was listed for plaintiff’s evidence, the learned Trial Court directed the parties to file their respective list 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 29/09/2026 at 10:51:51 witnesses, respective affidavits of witnesses, appointed a Court Commissioner for the purpose of recording evidence and listed the matter for final arguments. 4. When the above order was passed, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. However, the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.08.2026 duly recorded that at 11:35 AM, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and was apprised about the proceedings of the day and the next date of hearing. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 reads thus: “At 11.35 a.m. At this stage, Mr. Ram Kumar Soni, Ld. Counsel with defendant has appeared. They are apprised about today’s proceeding and next date of hearing.” 5. Seeking a recall/modification of the order dated 12.08.2028, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) before the learned Trial Court. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 19.08.2026 with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- . Through this same order, the learned Trial Court made recording of the petitioner’s evidence, contingent upon deposit of the aforesaid cost. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 19.08.2026 reads thus: “Since the present case is under 'The Commercial Courts Act, 2015' and defendant has been represented by Ld. Counsel and in this circumstances, Court cannot achieve the case of doing business, therefore, application under Section 151 CPC filed by defendant for modification of order dated 12.08.2026 is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with Cash Branch, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Ld. Counsel for the defendant is directed to comply the order 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 29/09/2026 at 10:51:51 deposition of above mentioned cost of Rs. 10,000/- and thereafter, get recorded evidence before Ld. Local Commissioner.” 6. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 fastened a substantial financial liability upon petitioner without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, either upon the appointment of the Court Commissioner or upon the terms of assignment thereof. It is further submitted that the prejudice caused to the petitioner was aggravated at 11:35 AM, as even after recording the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Trial Court did not deem it necessary to hear the petitioner’s side and merely “apprised” the petitioner of the order already passed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that insofar as the impugned order dated 19.08.2026 is concerned, the same is bereft of reasons, does not deal with the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly cannot be sustained. It is lastly contended that the cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed vide the aforesaid order, is likewise, unreasoned and burdensome for the petitioner. 9. Heard. Perused the record. 10. At the outset, it is pertinent to highlight that the underlying suit is a commercial suit governed by the regime of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, wherein strict adherence to timelines is mandated. Thus, under Order XV-A Rule 6(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Order XXVI Rule 4A read with Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC, the learned Trial Court was 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 29/09/2026 at 10:51:51 empowered to appoint a Court Commissioner for the purposes of recording evidence, in order to secure expeditious disposal. 11. Further, a perusal of the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 makes it evident that the learned Trial Court balanced equities by directing each party to bear the expenses of their respective evidence. The learned Trial Court also made specific directions to the effect that all expenses incurred in recording of evidence shall be redeemable as cost of litigation at the final stage. Thus, the contentions of the petitioner are devoid of merit, as the learned Trial Court duly balanced the interests of both parties. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “The party who is leading the evidence shall bear the costs of sitting. The parties to ensure that they will not seek any adjournment before Ld. Local Commissioner. At the cost of repetition, it is clarified that the plaintiff shall bear the expenses of plaintiff's evidence and defendant shall bear the expenses of defendants' evidence. XXX Expenditure incurred in recording of evidence shall be redeemable as cost of litigation at the end of the suit.” 12. The record further reflects that the petitioner has already participated in the proceedings held before the Court Commissioner on 24.08.2026, whereby PW-1 Sh. Anil Chugh was examined and having submitted to the mandate of the Court Commissioner, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to question the foundational order. 13. Insofar as the impugned order dated 19.08.2026 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not suffer from any 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 29/09/2026 at 10:51:51 infirmity or patent illegality, considering the legislative intent of expeditious disposal behind the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the fact that expenses incurred while recording evidence remained redeemable as cost of litigation at the final stage. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present petition. 15. The petition, along with pending applications, stands dismissed. AJAY DIGPAUL, J SEPTEMBER 25, 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 29/09/2026 at 10:51:51