RAHUL TYAGI vs KAMLESH AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 + C.R.P. 259/2025 & CM Appl. 57138/2025 RAHUL TYAGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sehdev Gupta, Mr. Parteek Tyagi, Ms. Kajal Pal, Ms. Neerja, Advs. versus KAMLESH AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. J.K. Jain and Mr. Urvesh Bhardwaj, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM Appl. 57137/2025[Seeking condonation of delay] 1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 1 day in filing the present Petition. 2. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay is condoned. 3. The Application stands disposed of. CM Appl. 57136/2025[Exemption from filing certified copies] 4. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 5. The Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 259/2025 & CM Appl. 57138/2025[Stay] 6. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] against the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:20.09.2025 C.R.P. 259/2025 Page 1 of 4 17:47:39 Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, who appears on advance service, submits that the Petition is not maintainable in terms of the proviso to Section 115 of the CPC. He submits that Section 115 of the CPC provides for a dismissal only when the order, if allowed, would have finally disposed of the matter. 8. It is no longer res integra