RAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY vs TIRUPATI WORK SPACE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 21st April, 2026 + CM(M) 885/2026 RAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shoaib Khan, Advocate. versus TIRUPATI WORK SPACE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA ORDER (Oral) Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 25756/2026 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CM(M) 885/2026 & CM APPL. 25755/2026 (for stay) 4. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the learned Trial Court to allow the petitioner/plaintiff to further cross-examine DW-1, namely, Mr. Prashant Garg, in CS(COMM) 549/2024. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents appears on advance notice and accepts notice. 6. Heard. Record perused. Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI CM(M) 885/2026 Page 1 of 3 CHAUHAN Signing Date:22.04.2026 11:47:14 7. The relevant portion of the order dated 11th February, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the cross-examination of DW-1, Mr. Prashant Garg, was closed, reads as follows:- “At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff had again attempted to put a question to the witness related to contents of document Ex. DW1/5. He has been cautioned time and again not to put such questions being barred by Section 91 of the IEA, however, it appears that he is not ready to mend his ways, hence, last and final warning is now issued to Ld. Counsel to put only the relevant question to the witness leaving aside the contents of documents as well as the matter of record. Again, another question related to contents of same