MUHAMMED AKKOYUN vs FLUPER LIMITED

Judgment text excerpt

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11th July, 2025 + CM(M) 1197/2025 & CM APPL. 40405-40406/2025 MUHAMMED AKKOYUN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Paras Joshi, Advocate. versus FLUPER LIMITED .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and has filed a suit which is commercial in nature. 2. Learned Trial Court framed issues on 14.02.2025 and in terms of case management hearing, fixed up dates for purposes of evidence and arguments. 3. The plaintiff’s evidence was directed to be conducted on 01.04.2025 and 02.04.2025. 4. When the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 01.04.2025, it was informed that plaintiff was resident of Australia and he wanted to be examined though video conferencing. Learned Trial Court though permitted him to move appropriate application in this regard, but subjected him with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-, to be deposited with DLSA. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1197/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:14.07.2025 12:06:21 5. An application was moved by him seeking recall of the abovesaid order whereby the cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed, however, the learned Trial Court has refused to waive such cost. 6. Such order is under challenge. 7. According to learned counsel for petitioner, after the issues were framed, the petitioner was in constant touch with the Indian Embassy situated in Australia but he never received any concrete response. He also refers to the e-mails sent by him to the Indian Embassy and submits that in such a situation, the learned Trial Court should have waived the cost as there was no deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. It is also submitted that the petitioner bein