INDER KUMAR vs SURINDER KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 29th July, 2025 + CM(M) 2524/2024 & CM APPL. 27448/2024 INDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate along with petitioner in person. versus SURINDER KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Verma and Ms. Gitika Sharma, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a suit filed by his brother who seeks possession of the property in question, besides mesne profits, injunction and damages. 2. The case is now at the stage of final arguments. 3. The grievance of the petitioner (defendant before the learned Trial Court) is with respect to order dated 20.04.2024 whereby his request to call four witnesses has been declined. 4. The impugned order records that the case had been fixed for defendant’s evidence for the first time in the year 2020 and that the defendant had been playing delaying tactics by moving one application after the other and, since the evidence was closed on 26.09.2023 on the submissions made by the defendant himself, there was no reason to entertain the abovesaid application. 5. Undoubtedly, to the abovesaid extent, there is no illegality and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 2524/2024 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:01.08.2025 12:07:47 perversity in the impugned order and the defendant should have been careful and watchful. If at all, he wanted to examine any further witness, he should not have closed his evidence. 6. According to petitioner (defendant), he wants to examine four witnesses and all such witnesses are official witnesses i.e. witnesses from MCD-School, MTNL, Gas Service Agency and Electricity Distribution Company. 7. However, during course of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has res