The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging two trial court orders that closed the defendant’s evidence and refused to reopen it. Justice Girish Kathpalia found the petition “completely frivolous and filed with oblique purposes”.
The case stemmed from a civil suit pending since 2016, where the defendant (petitioner in the present case) repeatedly failed to lead evidence despite multiple ‘last opportunities’, ultimately prompting the trial court to close his evidence and reject his attempt to reopen it.
In the appeal, the High Court noted that the petitioner had repeatedly delayed the proceedings by seeking adjournments on shifting grounds and even making false statements before the trial court, including wrongly claiming that a settlement had been reached. He also blamed his previous counsel for misstatements. The High Court found these explanations false on the record and refused to interfere under Article 227, emphasising that no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown.
In a significant observation on courtroom decorum, the High Court criticised the conduct of the defendant’s counsel, who addressed the court in a high pitch, claimed to practise in the Supreme Court, refused to argue when offered passovers, and attempted to overawe the trial judge. Justice Kathpalia remarked that “a judge is a judge, wherever she/he is placed in the judicial hierarchy” and stressed the duty of the court to preserve decorum in district courts as well.
During the dictation of the order, the counsel expressed remorse and sought permission to withdraw the petition. The High Court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the petition along with pending applications.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Om Prakash Mishra and Mr. Mayank Pandey, Advocates with petitioner in person.
Respondent- None
