Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (COMM.) 356/25
Rahul Attal Vs. M/S Acex Career Vista LLP
02.07.2026
Present: Sh. Atul Rawat, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff through
VC.
Sh. Ujjaval Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
Ld. Counsel(s) for the plaintiff as well as defendant
orally submit that in the present case, only three issues have been
framed i.e. one for recovery and another for interest. However,
issues qua possession, permanent injunction and damages /
mesne profits have not been framed. It is submitted that
additional issues are to be framed.
Heard. File perused. The issues were framed in this
case vide order dated 18.12.2025. However, upon perusal of
plaint, it reveals that the plaintiff has also prayed for decree for
possession, permanent injunction and damages / mesne profits.
In these circumstances, the following additional
issues are being framed in addition to the issues already framed
vide order dated 18.12.2025 :
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for possession, as
prayed for ? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent
injunction, as prayed for ? OPP.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for damages /
mesne profits, as prayed for ? OPP.
Now the issues framed vide order dated 18.12.2025
and as framed above are re-framed as under :
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for possession, as
prayed for ? OPP.
Contd...2
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent
injunction, as prayed for ? OPP.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for damages /
mesne profits, as prayed for ? OPP.
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount?
OPP.
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest? If yes, at what rate
and for what period? OPP
6. Relief
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits
that the plaintiff has already examined himself by way of
affidavit as PW1 and filed the relevant documents in support of
his case. He further orally submits that he does not want to lead
any additional evidence. Even otherwise the defence of the
defendant has already been struck off vide order dated
13.11.2025. Further upon an application, liberty was granted to
the defendant to recall PW1 for his cross-examination, which
was closed vide order dated 04.06.2026, as the defendant failed
to pay the cost imposed vide such order for recalling of PW1.
Final arguments have already been heard in this
case.
However, further final arguments have been
addressed today by Ld. Counsel for the defendant and concluded.
Now to come up for judgment on 04.07.2026.
(JAGDISH KUMAR)
District Judge, Comm. Court-01
North, Rohini Courts, Delhi
02.07.2026
-- 2 of 2 --