SUDHAKAR REDDY vs KAKARTHI @ AARTHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 15th May, 2025 + CM(M) 3788/2024 & CM APPL. 65446/2024& CM APPL. 6954/2025 SUDHAKAR REDDY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harsha Gollamudi with Mr. Naman Sharma, Advocates. versus KAKARTHI @ AARTHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meena Mehtani Gupta, SC with Ms. Vishakha, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest. 2. The issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 06.10.2023 and the matter was fixed for recording of plaintiff’s evidence. 3. According to learned counsel for defendant, though, he had received the advance copy of affidavit of plaintiff, it was neither signed nor attested and, therefore, he sent request to his counter-part to provide him with a proper photocopy. 4. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff also submits that, initially, unsigned and unattested copy was supplied but after receiving such message, the copy was supplied to the learned counsel for the defendant. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 3788/2024 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:16.05.2025 16:03:48 5. Fact remains that on 09.02.2024, there was a request for adjournment from the side of the defendant and, though, the matter was adjourned, the defendant was burdened with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 6. On the next fixed date i.e. 10.05.2024, noticing that the cost had not been paid, the right of the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff was closed. So much so, after closure of plaintiff’s evidence, the case was straightway fixed for final arguments. Impliedly, even the right of the defendant to lead his evidence in affirmative was abruptly snatched away. 7. Such order is under challenge. 8. During course of the