SMT.ROOPWATI vs SH. GAJRAJ @ GAJJI AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 16th February, 2026 + CM(M) 283/2026 SMT.ROOPWATI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh and Mr. Shrikant Shukla, Advocates. versus SH. GAJRAJ @ GAJJI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kabir Kr. Hazarika, Mr. Surender Kumar, Mr. Abhay Singh, Mr. Anshul B. and Mr. Mayank, 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 APPL. 7787/2026 & CM APPL. 7788/2026 (for exemptions) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM(M) 283/2026 & CM APPL. 7789/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 08th December, 2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS SCJ no. 478/2022, whereby the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff has been closed. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents appears on advance notice and Signature Not Verified CM(M) 283/2026 Page 1 of 3 Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Date:17.02.2026 11:10:33 accepts notice. 5. Heard. Record Perused. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was unable to lead her evidence because of her age and medical condition. It is further argued that in case an opportunity to lead evidence is not granted, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. It is submitted that only 02 (two) witnesses, including the petitioner herself, are required to be examined. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that sufficient opportunities had been granted by the learned Trial Court to the petitioner to lead evidence. However, despite such opportunities, no evidence was led. It is further argued