SAKSHI & ANR. vs RADHEY SHYAM & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 + CM(M) 1261/2025 & CM APPL. 42063/2025 SAKSHI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sarthak Sisodia, Advocate. versus RADHEY SHYAM & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vishaka and Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. Petitioners (defendants in suit) have challenged order dated 12.03.2025 of learned trial court whereby, their defence was struck off for the reason that for past few dates petitioner no.1 had not been appearing for concluding her cross-examination. I have heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. Broadly speaking, in the impugned order, the learned trial court observed that the present petitioner no.1 had not come forward for further cross-examination after 05.12.2023 and had been seeking adjournments on one or the other ground, which conveyed that she is intentionally delaying the matter and that calls for adverse action. After observing that, the learned CM(M) 1261/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb483 5d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2e ee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.09 16:58:29 -07'00' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:09.09.2025 18:05:51 trial court struck off the defence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law since out of seventeen dates of hearing, petitioner no.1 appeared on as many as eleven hearings but could not appear on the remaining ones on account of her illness