TANISH ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SMT MAMTA ARORA vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Judgment text excerpt

$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 30th April, 2025 + CM(M) 794/2025 & CM APPL. 25857-25860/2025 TANISH ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SMT MAMTA ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sushant Sagar, Ms. S. Bhatia and versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a Commercial Suit which seeks recovery of Rs.12,33,557/- with interest. 2. After completion of pleading and framing of issues, both the sides led their respective evidence. 3. The plaintiff also examined its witnesses including one Mr. Saubhagya Saxena. Thereafter, the defendants also examined their witnesses and their evidence was also closed on 12.12.2024. 4. When the case was at the stage of final arguments, one application was filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 1 and under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine Ms. Durgawati Kumari. She also happens to be authorized representative of the plaintiff bank and is the one who had signed and filed the suit as such AR of the plaintiff bank. It was submitted therein that due to some inadvertent omission, she could not be examined and, therefore, she may be permitted to enter into witness box for effective and appropriate disposal of the suit in question. 5. Such application has been allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.04.2025 and the defendant has taken exception to the abovesaid order. 6. Mr. Sushant Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 794/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:01.05.2025 17:04:38 Trial Court should not have given any indulgence to the plaintiff as the attempt of the plaintiff b