SHRI GIAN CHAND RALHAN vs SHRI GURVINDER SINGH BAKSHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHIAT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 17th February, 2026 + CM(M) 238/2026 SHRI GIAN CHAND RALHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Gupta, Ms. Surbhi Gupta and Mr. Anant Gupta, Advocates. versus SHRI GURVINDER SINGH BAKSHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumeet Kaul and Mr. Himanshu Singhal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA ORDER (Oral) Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. CM(M) 238/2026 & CM APPL. 6415/2026 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 14th November, 2025, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS DJ No. 357/2020, whereby the question put by the petitioner/defendant to the PW1 (respondent) in his cross-examination, regarding receiving of the notice marked as PW1/DX1 has been declined. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW1 dated 14th November, 2025 reads as follows: “At this stage, ld. counsel for the defendant has shown the copy of the purported notice under Order XII rule 8 CPC Signature Not Verified CM(M) 238/2026 Page 1 of 2 Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Date:17.02.2026 17:07:42 dated 11.11.2025 given by the defendant to the plaintiff, to the witness and has asked the witness as to whether the said notice was received by him. For identification sake, the said notice is marked as Mark PWl/DXl. (Court observation:- the question is declined as order XII rule 8 forms part of chapter 12 of CPC on admissions and is prior to chapter 14 pertaining to settlement of issues etc. Hence the said purported notice dated 11.11.2025 being issued after framing of issues cannot be put to the witness in evidence)” 5. This Court has also perused