$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010995612025 + CM(M) 2398/2025 & CM APPL. 66049/2026 M/S TIRUPATI BUILDING AND OFFICES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vijay Kasana, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma and Mr. Gurjas Narula, Advs. versus RAJNI OBEROI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Mahender Shukla, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the orders dated 28.07.2025 and 20.08.2025 whereby the learned trial court has closed the right of the petitioner/defendant to cross-examine PW-1. 2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows- 3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the underlying suit for recovery seeking Rs. 17,25,625, and after completion of pleadings and framing of issues, the matter was posted for PE. The evidence by way of affidavit of PW-1 was tendered on 05.05.2016 and the matter was listed for cross- examination of PW-1 on 09.09.2016. On 21.10.2016 PW-1 was partly cross- examined, however, the cross-examination was deferred for want of documents. It is stated that the matter had remained stagnant at the stage 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 01/10/2026 at 11:10:24 cross-examination of PW-1 for approximately the next two years. 4. On 20.03.2018, the learned trial court noted the absence of the petitioner and the non-payment of earlier costs and proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner while closing the right to cross-examine PW-1. On 07.05.2019, PE was closed and the matter was posted for ex-parte final arguments. 5. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC seeking to place on record the ledger statement for the period of 10.06.2010 to 27.06.2012. The application came to be allowed vide order dated 25.01.2020 and the matter was posted for ex-parte PE. 6. The petitioner/defendant entered fresh appearance on 22.02.2022 and 29.10.2022 and sought time to cross-examine PW-1 and PW-4 as fresh evidence was sought to be adduced through the additional documents permitted to be taken on record vide order dated 25.01.2020. On 27.09.2023 the learned trial court took a prima facie view that the petitioner should be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses on merits. 7. From September 2023 till July 2025, the matter was stagnant at the stage of PE while the matter was referred to mediation, payment of imposed costs and was repeatedly adjourned. 8. On 28.07.2025 and 20.08.2025 the learned trial court noted the persistent absence of the petitioner in 2016-2018 and the fact that the petitioner has not filed an application under Order IX for setting aside of the ex-parte order and thereafter closed the right of the petitioner to cross- examine PW-1. The matter was thereafter listed for DE. Aggrieved, petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 01/10/2026 at 11:10:24 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court on 27.09.2023 had given a prima-facie view that the petitioner should be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses on merits. Furthermore, the intention of the learned trial court to allow the cross-examination on merits is also borne out from the fact that since September 2023, the matter has been listed for the remaining PE. 10. He has further submitted that while passing the impugned orders, the learned trial court has erred in conflating the issues of being proceeded ex- parte, and closure of evidence. He has submitted that being proceeded ex- parte is a result of unexplained absence, however, the same cannot be equated with closing the right to cross-examination, which is undoubtedly an important right of the parties. To that effect, he has also requested that the right to cross-examination may be re-opened and the petitioner may be put to reasonable terms for the same. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has strongly objected to the petitioner’s contentions and has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly held that the petitioner not having filed any application under Order IX cannot be allowed to cross-examine PW-1. 12. He has further submitted that the mischievous intent of the petitioner is writ large from the fact that PW-1 was partly cross-examined in 2016 and since then the case has been stagnant at the stage of PE. He has disputed that the learned trial court did not give any binding view qua the petitioner’s right to cross-examine, and that the learned trial court has, at best, had stated that the petitioner can be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses on the additional documents and evidence adduced. 13. At the outset, a bare perusal of the annexed order sheets makes it clear 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 01/10/2026 at 11:10:24 that both parties have been, at one point or the other, delaying the trial court proceedings. 14. The order dated 27.09.2023 makes it clear that the learned trial court had given a prima facie view in favour of the petitioner and had allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses on merits. It’s clear that there is no express stipulation to limit the cross-examination to only the additional evidence and documents permitted vide order dated 25.01.2020. Furthermore, the order sheets from September 2023 to 2025 makes it clear that the learned trial court has kept the matter pending at the stage of PE, and thus, it cannot be said that the learned trial court did not take a view to allow cross-examination. 15. The right to cross-examine is an invaluable right and its closure can make the petitioner’s defence hollow. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the case has been pending at the stage of PE since the past 10 years and much of the delay is attributable to the petitioner. 16. During the course of the arguments, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also stated that they shall be moving an appropriate application under Order IX before the learned trial court. Having noted the statement of the learned senior counsel, this Court deems it relevant to not express any opinion on the matter and leave the issue to be decided by the learned trial court. 17. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28.07.2025 and 20.08.2025 are set aside subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent within 5 days from today. It is made clear that the payment of costs shall be a condition precedent to the cross-examination. 18. The petitioner is granted one last and final opportunity to cross- 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 01/10/2026 at 11:10:24 examine PW-1 on any date directed by the learned trial court. The parties are directed to not take any adjournments and to ensure that the cross- examination concludes in a timely manner. 19. The petition along with pending applications stands disposed of. 20. The already fixed, i.e. 11.02.2027, stands cancelled. AJAY DIGPAUL, J SEPTEMBER 29, 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 01/10/2026 at 11:10:24