Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 10CS (COMM)46/24
Tarsham Mittal Vs. Rahul Gupta
09.12.2024
Present : Sh. Sumit Nandwani, Advocate for the plaintiff through
video-conferencing.
Sh. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the defendant, through
video-conferencing.
Submissions of the Ld. Counsels for the parties are heard
on the application of the defendant, for waiving the cost, imposed on
the defendant, vide order dated 18.10.2024.
During the course of arguments, it is stated by the Ld.
Counsel for the defendant that he could not appear before the Ld.
Local Commissioner, on 28.09.2024, for recording the evidence of the
plaintiff, due to bereavement in his family. Therefore, he made a
request for adjournment for recording the evidence of the parties, and
with the consent of the plaintiff, the matter was adjourned for
03.10.2024. From the perusal of the record and submissions of the ld.
Counsels for the parties, it appears that the parties have not complied
the order dated 04.09.2024, and they have themselves fixed the date
for recording of the evidence of the parties, on 03.10.2024, in
violation of the order dated 04.09.2024.
In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the
present application and the same is hereby dismissed, being devoid of
any merits. I.A. No.03/24 is disposed off accordingly.
Adjourned for payment of cost by the defendant, and for
final arguments on 09.01.2025.
Brijesh Kumar Garg,
District Judge,
Commercial Court – 01,
Shahdara District, KKD Courts,
Delhi/09.12.2024/rs
-- 1 of 1 --