Jasmine Nagpal Chadha vs Tejpal Singh Chadha

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010388722026
+ CM(M) 1840/2026 & CM APPL. 56035/2026 (Stay)
JASMINE NAGPAL CHADHA .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person with her
counsel (name not given)

versus

TEJPAL SINGH CHADHA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Preet Singh, Mr.
Rahul Khan and Mr. Abhijeet
Singh, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, 1950 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1 2
1908 , assails the Order dated 27.07.2026 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, New
Delhi in HMA No. 1770/2025.
2. The matter was adjourned on two earlier dates to ascertain from
the Respondent whether he may be willing to amicably resolve the
matter and permit himself to be cross-examined.

1
CPC
2
Impugned Order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
CM(M) 1840/2026 Page 1 of 5

3. Today, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent,
on instructions, submits that the limited relief sought by the Petitioner
in respect of his cross-examination may be considered favourably,
subject to the same being completed within a time-bound schedule. He
suggests that the cross-examination may be conducted on a day-to-day
basis and concluded within a period of one month.
4. The Petitioner, who appears in person, is, however, not
agreeable to the aforesaid suggestion. She submits that she will cross-
examine only after a period of six months from today and states that,
upon expiry of the said period, she would be willing to conclude the
cross-examination in the duration as directed by this Court.
5. This Court has queried the Petitioner as to why such a stance is
being taken. The Petitioner submits that firstly, her father needs to
undergo a liver transplant and since the doctors have said the organ
may be made available on any day within a six month duration, she
will only be able to cross-examine post the liver transplant being
carried out. She further submits that the Respondent took a long time
in prosecuting the matter and kept causing delays and therefore, she is,
at the very least, entitled to cross-examine only after the passage of six
months.
6. This Court has heard the Petitioner as well as learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Respondent and has perused the contents of
the present Petition.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds the
stand taken by the Petitioner, particularly her insistence upon
deferring the cross-examination by a period of six months despite the
reasonable proposal for its expeditious completion, to be wholly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
CM(M) 1840/2026 Page 2 of 5

untenable. The suggestion advanced on behalf of the Respondent,
which seeks only to ensure that the cross-examination is concluded
within a defined and reasonable timeframe, cannot be said to be
unreasonable.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that
the Petition does not appear to be bona fide . In fact, it appears that the
Petitioner is only interested in delaying the matter. The manner in
which the relief has been sought, coupled with the Petitioner‟s
unwillingness to cross-examine within any reasonable timeframe, does
not warrant the exercise of the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. This Court is also in agreement with the reasons given by the
learned Trial Court. The same reads as under:
“Through this application, the respondent seeks recalling of
petitioner/PW1 for his cross-examination by her Counsel and the
application is found to have been moved mainly on grounds that
principles of natural justice stood violated in this case by closure of
cross-examination of petitioner and she has a right to fair trial. It is
also the submission made by respondent in this application that no
sufficient time and opportunities were given to her for cross-
examination of petitioner and the petitioner being a material
witness is required to be recalled. The power of Ld. Local
Commissioner appointed in this case for recording evidence of
parties to close the said cross-examination of witness has also been
challenged by respondent, though it is not maintainable as the
Local Commissioner was well within his powers to close the cross-
examination of witnesses, if any witness failed to appear before
him for tendering his statement.
On perusal of record, it is found that this is one of the oldest
cases of Court having been filed on 12.03.2012. Vide order dated
02.05.2026 passed with the consent of respondent, this Court had
appointed a Local Commissioner for recording of evidence of
parties and the fee of Ld. Local Commissioner was directed to be
paid by petitioner as he volunteered to bear the said expenses for
expeditious trial of his petition. The Court has also fixed a schedule
for recording of evidence of parties and the evidence of petitioner
was to be recorded between 11.05.2026 to 10.06.2026 and
evidence of respondent was to be recorded between 11.06.2026 to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
CM(M) 1840/2026 Page 3 of 5

17.07.2026 and the matter was fixed before this Court on
18.07.2026 awaiting report of Ld. Local Commissioner.
However, it has been reported by Ld. Local Commissioner
that despite giving various opportunities to respondent as well as
her Counsel, they have failed to appear before him and to cross-
examine the petitioner and hence, the cross-examination of
petitioner/PW1 was directed to be treated as „Nil. Opportunity
given‟ by the Ld. Local Commissioner.
Thereafter, he has also given sufficient time and
opportunities to respondent to bring her evidence, but she as well
as her Counsel failed to suitably respond to the repeated requests
made by Ld. Local Commissioner to give the dates for appearance
and examination of respondent.
Three reports given by Ld. Local Commissioner i.e. two
interim reports dated 02.06.2026, 06.06.2026 and one final detailed
report dated 17.07.2026 speak volume about the conduct of
respondent and her Counsel in not responding to the repeated calls
and requests made by Ld. Local Commissioner for appearance for
the purposes of cross-examination of petitioner and for leading of
defence evidence.
Further, the above reports also show that the respondent
had even not cared to follow the order and comply with directions
of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in CM(M) No. 1289/2026,
which was filed by her against the above said order dated
02.05.2026 of this Court appointing a Local Commissioner for
recording of evidence of parties. It can be seen that vide its above
order dated 29.05.2026 passed in above application, the Hon'ble
High Court has specifically directed the parties to appear before the
Ld. Local Commissioner on 02.06.2026 for finalizing the dates for
recording of their evidence, but she or her Counsel had not so
appeared.
It is necessary to mention here that the respondent has gone
to challenge the above order even though it was a consent order
passed by this Court and the only relief which she got in the said
petition was that some misc. or incidental expenses, which were
inadvertently directed by this Court to be paid by the parties for
leading of their evidence, were also directed to be borne by the
petitioner even in respect to the evidence to be led by respondent.
Hence, in view of above discussion, this court does not find
any merits in the present application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
filed by respondent seeking recalling of petitioner/PW I for cross-
examination and it is only an attempt on her part to further delay
the proceedings of case. Therefore, the same is being dismissed.
List the matter now on 21.08.2026 for final arguments.”

10. It is apposite to mention that the learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
CM(M) 1840/2026 Page 4 of 5

Petitioner did not press the challenge to the power of the Local
Commissioner to close the cross-examination.
11. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has
taken into consideration various aspects, inter alia , the vintage of the
matter, the conduct of the Petitioner, as also the failure of the
Petitioner to repeatedly cross-examine or bring her evidence. The
learned Trial Court takes particular note of the persistent recalcitrance
displayed by the Petitioner, including, in respect of the orders passed
by this Court.
12. This Court, therefore, on merits too, finds no reason to interfere
in the matter.
13. Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed. Though the
present Petition requires to be dismissed with costs, this Court has
exercised restraint and not imposed any costs.
14. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any,
is disposed of in aforementioned terms.



HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026/rk/DJ

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
CM(M) 1840/2026 Page 5 of 5