DR RITA BAKSHI vs SEEMA BAJAJ

Judgment text excerpt

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26th May, 2025 + CM(M) 828/2025 & CM APPL. 26980-26981/2025 DR RITA BAKSHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Mr. Bharat Malhotra and Mr. Kushal Malhotra, Advocates versus SEEMA BAJAJ .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raajan Chawla, Ms. Manika Jolly and Ms. Pallavi Yadav, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner has filed a suit seeking recovery. 2. Petitioner is a practising doctor and so is the respondent. 3. During pendency of the suit in question, petitioner choose to examine herself through her attorney and, vide order dated 25.04.2025, noticing that plaintiff has already been granted sufficient indulgence to lead her evidence, such request was disallowed while also observing that even Special Power of Attorney, allegedly executed in favour of such attorney, was unstamped. 4. It needs to be mentioned that when this matter was taken up by this Court on 05.05.2025, Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, learned counsel for petitioner, on instructions, submitted that plaintiff herself would enter into witness box and, therefore, notice was issued to respondent. 5. Learned counsel for respondent/defendant appears on such notice and though he opposes the petition in question, stating that the conduct of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 828/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:27.05.2025 16:13:46 petitioner/plaintiff does not call for any interference, particularly, by invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, he, in all fairness, leaves it to this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. The next date before the learned Trial Court is stated to be 30 th instant. 7. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, the present petition is d