Failure to Avail Opportunities for Oral Arguments Justifies Limitation to Written Submissions Before Judgment Pronouncement.

The petitioner (Defendant in the trial court) challenged orders dated 18th April 2026 and 28th April 2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Tis Hazari, in a recovery suit for ₹1,20,45,181/-.

On 18th April, the trial court rejected the petitioner's request for an adjournment based on the lead counsel’s travel to Kolkata, noting a history of delays and previous intervention by the High Court.

The trial court heard the plaintiff’s final arguments and permitted the petitioner only to file written arguments.

A subsequent application by the petitioner seeking an opportunity for oral arguments was dismissed on 28th April 2026, as the court found the petitioner had failed to ensure counsel's presence despite multiple call-outs.

1. Whether the trial court acted with material irregularity or illegality by denying the petitioner an opportunity to lead oral arguments after refusing an adjournment.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to further oral hearings given that the matter was already fixed for pronouncement of judgment.

The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The court balanced the principle of audi alteram partem with the mandate for expeditious disposal of commercial disputes, particularly looking at the conduct of the parties during the trial.

It relied on the trial court's discretion to regulate proceedings when parties fail to appear at the stage of final arguments as per the scheduled timeline.

The High Court observed that the trial court provided ample opportunity for the petitioner to address arguments, noting the case was taken up thrice on 18th April 2026 without the lead counsel appearing physically or virtually.

The court scrutinized the petitioner’s grounds for adjournment and agreed with the trial court that a "conference in Kolkata" without supporting documentation was insufficient to stall a recovery suit that had already seen previous delays.

The Court reasoned that since the trial court had already granted the petitioner the liberty to file written arguments, the right to be heard was sufficiently protected.

Considering the advanced stage of the suit—specifically that it was reserved for judgment—the Court found no merit in interfering with the trial court's procedural orders.

It held that because the petitioner had already been granted the opportunity to submit written arguments and the suit was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 11th May 2026, no intervention was warranted.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.