UNITED POLY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD vs YATRA ONLINE PVT. LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.11.2025 + CM(M) 2283/2025, CM APPL. 74305/2025 & 74304/2025 UNITED POLY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhuvanesh Sehgal, Advocate versus YATRA ONLINE PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R (ORAL) 1. Petitioner/plaintiff has assailed order dated 24.11.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby when despite passover the counsel for petitioner/plaintiff remained adamant not to cross-examine the witness of the respondent/defendant, the matter was adjourned subject to deposit of cost by the petitioner/plaintiff with DLSA. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. 2. Broadly speaking, it appears that on 24.11.2025, when the authorized representative of respondent/defendant appeared for cross-examination, learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff refused to cross-examine the witness on the ground that the earlier authorized representative who was partly cross-examined be produced again. Despite being repeatedly called upon to CM(M) 2283/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages Signature Not Verified GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155 Digitally Signed 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2 6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.11.27 17:48:56 -08'00' By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:27.11.2025 18:22:21 conduct cross-examination of the defendant’s witness present in court as the subject suit is an old suit awaiting disposal, counsel for petitioner/plaintiff firmly insisted that he would