BALAJEE METAL INDUSTRIES vs BIR BHAN JINDAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 03 rd July, 2025 + CM(M) 1122/2025, CM APPL. 38073/2025 & CM APPL. 38074/2025 BALAJEE METAL INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hari Kishan with Mr. Akarsh Sharma, Advocate. versus BIR BHAN JINDAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sachin Agarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a suit which is commercial in nature. 2. His sole grievance is with respect to the fact that though the Court had allowed him to examine three witnesses but at the same time, it refused to issue summons them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant before the learned Trial Court) submits that out of such three witnesses, he was able to produce two witnesses before the learned Local Commissioner and two such witnesses have already been examined. 4. He, however, submits that with respect to the third witness i.e. Mr. Nitin Garg, he could not produce him as he was not under his control. He submits that Mr. Garg is rather employee of the plaintiff and, therefore, he is not going to appear unless there is issuance of summons by the Court. 5. It is quite evident from the order dated 08.05.2025 that when the defendant had moved an application before the learned Trial Court seeking Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1122/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:04.07.2025 10:28:23 indulgence of the Court for production of the abovesaid witness, such prayer was declined, this is how the present petition has been filed. 6. It is also apprised that the matter is fixed today itself before the learned Trial Court for hearing final arguments. It is also argued by the learned counsel for that there is no intention to delay the proceedings of the case and he only s