Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -	1	-
23 CS 426/23
TRILOCHAN SINGH Vs. MANJEET SINGH
15.11.2025
(Second regular PA is on leave today. )
Present : Sh. Satish Sharma, Ld. counsel for Plaintiff with plaintiff.
Defendant in person.
Matter is listed today for final arguments.
In between, an application filed by the defendant under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of Smt. Balvinder Kaur
along with document as per Index, running upto 10 pages. Copy
supplied.
Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff submits that application has been
filed only to delay the matter and he is ready to argue upon the said
application without filing any reply.
Defendant seeks an adjournment by stating that his
Advocate is not available today as he is unwell.
Adjournment is strongly opposed by the Ld. Counsel for
Plaintiff, who submits that defendant is trying to prolong the matter and
instant application has been moved just two days prior to today’s date.
He further submits that defendant has not cleared the previous costs.
Heard. Record perused.
Perusal of record shows that vide Order dated 24.07.2025,
costs of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed twice on the Defendant while
disposing off two applications filed by him, to be deposited with
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
DLSA(Shah). Further, vide Order dated 07.06.2024, costs of Rs.5,000/-
was imposed upon the defendant, to be paid to the plaintiff.
Defendant ensures to clear the said costs.
Considering the fact that the above application has been
moved only two days before, Defendant is further burdened with costs
of Rs.5,000/- for today’s adjournment, which shall be paid by him to
the Plaintiff.
Put up for arguments on above application as well as final
arguments on 17.01.2026.
(MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM)
District Judge-03 (Shahdara),
KKD Courts, Delhi. 15.11.2025
-- 2 of 2 --