Delhi High Court - Orders
Aman Mishra vs M/S Suprabhat Electric Co. Pvt.Ltd on 15 September, 2025
$~101
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 3975/2024 & CM APPL. 70604/2024 (stay)
AMAN MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Renu Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
M/S SUPRABHAT ELECTRIC CO. PVT.LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Goel, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER
% 15.09.2025
1. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks passover awaiting arguing counsel. It already being 03:40pm, on account of pending board passover is extremely difficult, especially because on last date also none appeared for petitioner. But passover is allowed, making it clear that in case by next call arguing counsel does not appear, the stay dated 30.05.2025 granted by the predecessor bench on disposal of the suit shall be vacated since final arguments of the present respondent stand concluded before the trial court.
2. Be awaited.
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2025/as Present: Ms. Renu Bhardwaj, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Amit Goel, Advocate for Respondent.
3. Even in this second call at 04:35 pm, arguing counsel for petitioner This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 23:20:17 has not appeared. Further opportunity is strongly opposed by counsel for respondent, pointing out that on last date also none appeared for petitioner and the learned trial court is unable to decide the suit, because the predecessor bench vide order dated 30.05.2025 permitted the trial court to hear final arguments but directed that matter shall not be disposed of. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that he has already advanced final arguments before the trial court.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner on being called upon to address arguments submits that she has no instructions.
5. It appears that vide order dated 27.04.2024, defence of the present petitioner was struck off by the trial court on account of non-payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/-. That order was challenged by the present petitioner through CM(M) 3107/2024 in which vide order dated 05.08.2024, a coordinate bench of this court dismissed the petition as not pressed granting opportunity to the present petitioner to clear the unpaid cost and also bear additional cost, which would be decided by the trial court. But despite such indulgence, petitioner did not file any application before the trial court in time and even the unpaid cost was deposited online just a day before the date of hearing 27.09.2024 without even informing the respondent or his counsel, so the same was returned in cash.
6. Consequences of non-payment of cost in terms with Section 35B CPC, as elaborately laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Manohar Singh vs. D.S. Sharma, (2010) 1 SCC 53 have been brought to notice of both sides.
7. Considering the above circumstances, the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30.05.2025 is vacated and learned trial This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 23:20:17 court is permitted to dispose of the matter after hearing both sides.
8. Relist on 05.02.2026 in Advance List.
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2025/dr This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 23:20:17