BALAJEE METAL INDUSTRIES vs BIR BHAN JINDAL

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.