KAPIL vs PAWAN KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 12th February, 2026 + CM(M) 303/2026, CM APPL. 8196/2026, CM APPL. 8197/2026 & CM APPL. 8198/2026 KAPIL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind Vashishtha and Ms. Sakshi Panwar, Advocates. versus PAWAN KUMAR .....Respondent Through: None. 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 order dated 02nd April, 2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS DJ ADJ 950/2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for summoning a witness, namely-Randhir has been dismissed and evidence of the petitioner was closed. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the DW-Randhir is a material witness of the case and that if he is not examined, it would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner’s case. 5. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 02nd April, 2025 reads as follows: Signature Not Verified CM(M) 303/2026 Page 1 of 3 Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Date:13.02.2026 11:14:13 “Ld. counsel for defendant has prayed for dispoal of application for summoning of witness i.e. Sh. Randhir. The application is strongly opposed by Ld. counsel for plaintiff. The perusal of record reveals that the issues in the present case were framed vide order dated 02.05.2019. The parties were required to file list of witnesses within the period of 15 days from the date of said order. It is an admitted fact that the name of DW Sh. Randhir was not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed on behalf of defendant. The defendant alongwith the application for summoning of witnesses has filed the