SUNIL KUMAR PAUL vs CHANDERBHAN KALRA

Judgment text excerpt

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 3rdApril, 2025 + CM(M) 615/2025 & CM APPL. 19521/2025 SUNIL KUMAR PAUL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Chauhan, Advocate. versus CHANDERBHAN KALRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Birla, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a suit for possession and recovery of rent, mesne profits and injunction. 2. When the case was at the stage of defendant’s evidence, the defendant wanted to examine himself and his wife, in their defense. 3. The learned Trial Court had directed both of them to be present for the purposes of their cross examination. However, when the case was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 28.01.2025, DW-2 Mrs. Sarita Paul (wife of defendant) did not appear and her counsel apprised that she was, somehow, under the impression that her examination would be recorded only after the cross examination of DW-1 was complete. Keeping in mind the fact that the plaintiff is an octogenarian, and the specific directions which had earlier been given by the learned Trial Court, the opportunity for the defendant to examine DW-2 was closed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 615/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:04.04.2025 15:22:36 4. An application was moved seeking recall of the abovesaid order and even such application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 25.02.2025 and such orders are under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for plaintiff appears on advance notice. 6. Mr. Mukesh Birla, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that though the present petition lacks any merit and substance and does not disclose any compelling reason, in order to avoid any unnecessary delay in his suit, he would have no objection if t