Interim Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENU KAUSHIK: DISTRICT
JUDGE – 03: NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS : NEW DELHI
CS 469/2023
CNR No. DLND010072502023
Virat Mohan
Versus
Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.
ORDER:
1. By way of the present order, I shall dispose of the
application moved on behalf of the defendant u/Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking recall of the order
dated 05.12.2025, whereby the right of the defendant to cross-
examine PW-1 was closed. Arguments on the application have
already been heard.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the defendant that the
defendant has been diligently participating in the proceedings of
the present matter on various dates, either through physical
appearance or through video conferencing through its counsel. It
is further submitted that on 10.09.2025, it was the plaintiff who
adopted delaying tactics by failing to produce his witness and by
falsely claiming the unavailability of his counsel, on account of
which costs of Rs.2,000/- were imposed upon the plaintiff.
CS 469/2023 Pages 1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
3. It is further submitted that on 17.10.2025, the defendant
successfully moved formal applications seeking substitution of
its corporate name Aditya Birla Capital Limited and substitution
of its authorised representative. It is further submitted that vide
order dated 17.10.2025, the cross-examination of PW-1 was
deferred and the matter was listed for 05.12.2025 for the said
purpose.
4. It is further submitted that on 05.12.2025, the matter had
been entrusted to the associate counsel, Mr. Shubham Karanwal,
who had been duly briefed to conduct the cross-examination of
PW-1. However, on the morning of 05.12.2025, Mr. Shubham
Karanwal suffered a sudden and severe medical exigency,
rendering him incapable of attending the court proceedings. It is
further submitted that Mr. Manish Kumar appeared as proxy
counsel and apprised the Court of the said medical emergency
however, due to a bona fide communication gap, the proxy
counsel could not ascertain the immediate availability of a duly
signed Vakalatnama on record in favour of the concerned
associate counsel. Consequently, as the signing counsel Ms.
Ojasvi Sharma was herself in an advanced stage of pregnancy
and was unable to appear before the Court and no other
instructed counsel from the firm could appear physically, the
right of the defendant to cross-examine PW-1 was closed by the
Court.
5. It is further submitted that the inability of the instructed
counsel to appear and conduct the cross-examination of PW-1
was solely on account of the aforesaid medical emergency. It is
further submitted that the defendant is a reputed public financial
CS 469/2023 Pages 2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
institution and that the plaintiff had admittedly availed the
financial facilities extended by the defendant and enjoyed the
benefits thereof. It is contended that the present suit has been
instituted maliciously as an afterthought with the sole intention of
dragging the defendant into unnecessary litigation so as to evade
the legitimate and contractually mandated recovery proceedings
initiated by the defendant. It is further submitted that grave and
irreparable loss and prejudice shall be caused to the defendant in
the event its right to cross-examine PW-1 is not restored, whereas
no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if such an
opportunity is granted.
6. The application has been vehemently opposed by learned
counsel for the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant has
been adopting delaying tactics throughout the proceedings and
that the present application seeking recall of the order dated
05.12.2025 has been filed only with a view to further delay the
adjudication of the suit. It is further submitted that PW-1 has
already tendered his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and
that the plaintiff does not intend to examine any further witness.
It is, therefore, prayed that the matter be listed for final
arguments.
7. The submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties
have been considered. The record has also been perused.
8. A perusal of the record reveals that Ms. Ojasvi Sharma had
been appearing on behalf of the defendant on several dates
preceding the closure of the defendant’s right to cross-examine
PW-1. It has been submitted that Ms. Ojasvi Sharma was in an
CS 469/2023 Pages 3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
advanced stage of pregnancy and therefore, was unable to appear
on 05.12.2025. It has further been stated that the counsel
instructed to conduct the cross-examination of PW-1 also
suffered a medical exigency and thus was consequently unable to
appear before the Court.
9. Having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of
the defendant, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the
interest of justice, one further opportunity should be granted to
the defendant to cross-examine PW-1. However, considering the
fact that no medical document pertaining to the alleged medical
exigency of Mr. Shubham Karanwal has been placed on record,
the defendant is burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to
the plaintiff.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the present application stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Meenu Kaushik)
District Judge-03
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
29.07.2026
CS 469/2023 Pages 4/4
-- 4 of 4 --