POONAM SHARMA vs SURINDER SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 20th April, 2026 + CM(M) 865/2026, CM APPL. 25443/2026 & CM APPL. 25444/2026 POONAM SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg and Ms. Kavita Agrawal, Advocates. versus SURINDER SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Murria, Advocate along with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA ORDER (Oral) Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the impugned order dated 09th February, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court in CIV DJ No. 128/2016, whereby the right of the petitioner/defendant to adduce further evidence has been closed. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and accepts notice. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks to examine one additional witness, namely, Ms. Roopa Sharma, who is the daughter of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in case an opportunity to lead evidence is not granted, grave prejudice would be caused to the Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI CM(M) 865/2026 Page 1 of 2 CHAUHAN Signing Date:21.04.2026 11:23:23 petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead evidence and a period of one week be granted to file the affidavit of evidence of the said witness. 6. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that sufficient opportunities have already been granted by the learned Trial Court to the petitioner to lead evidence. It is, however, submitted that he has no objection if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, subject