MST NAYAB BEGUM vs ARMAN ULLAH QURESHI & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 29th July, 2025 + CM(M) 637/2025 & CM APPL. 20241-20243/2025 MST NAYAB BEGUM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Chaudhary, Advocate. versus ARMAN ULLAH QURESHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shazeb, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 appears pursuant to notice. 2. The point involved in the present petition is very short. 3. A suit was filed by plaintiffs seeking cancellation of sale deed, possession and injunction. 4. When the case was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 07.07.2024, learned Trial Court declined to give any further opportunity to plaintiffs to lead their evidence and their right was, accordingly, closed. 5. An application was moved by the plaintiffs seeking recall of the abovesaid order. 6. According to plaintiffs, earlier, part-testimony of plaintiff No.2 was recorded in the Court but, since, she suffered paralysis and was not even able to speak on account of her such medical condition and was under medical observation, she wanted her daughter-in-law to be examined for the purposes of substantiating the case of plaintiffs. 7. Learned Trial Court declined to recall the order and observed that such medical condition of plaintiff No.2 was never apprised to the Court on any previous occasions and since the case pertained to year 2007 and was at the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 637/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:01.08.2025 16:04:07 stage of PE since 2012, there was no reason for grant of any further opportunity. 8. Such order dated 19.07.2024 is under challenge. 9. Mr. Pradeep Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff submits that daughter-in-law of plaintiff No.1wou