# RAJ KUMAR vs KANAHIYA LAL AND ANR.

Court: Delhi High Court
Date: 2025-07-16
Citation: FAO-181/2025 2025:DHC:5752
Petitioner: RAJ KUMAR
Respondent: KANAHIYA LAL AND ANR.

[Official PDF on Delhi High Court website](https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/60916072025FAO1812025_104510.pdf)

## Judgment text (excerpt)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 16th July, 2025 FAO 181/2025 & CM APPL. 41467-41469/2025 RAJ KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul, Mr. Rahul Kumar and Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Advs. versus KANAHIYA LAL AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The appellant challenges dismissal of his application moved under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’]. 2. This Court has gone through the impugned order dated 13.02.2025. 3. The learned Trial Court, while taking up the abovesaid application, in order to ensure that there is no prejudice to the applicant (appellant herein), framed issues even and permitted him to lead evidence. The applicant examined four witnesses in order to substantiate his assertions made in the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 4. The abovesaid application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the point of limitation as well as on merits. 5. The impugned order would clearly indicate that the applicant had examined four witnesses and if the applicant was having any reservation or grievance with respect to the alleged s

https://niyam.ai/judgements/high-court/2025/july/raj-kumar-vs-kanahiya-lal-and-anr