Summary: On November 27, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed a request by Nikita Jain and another person to bring back a witness in their ongoing property dispute. The court agreed with the trial court's earlier decision, stating that the request wasn't reasonable at this stage of the case.
In this case, Nikita Jain and another person filed a lawsuit against Ram Phal and another person. They wanted the court to cancel a registered sale deed. They also asked for money as compensation and a court order to stop other people from getting involved with the property.
On October 15, 2025, the trial court turned down the petitioners' request under a rule that allows bringing back a witness. The court didn't find it necessary to notify anyone after hearing both sides. Justice Girish Kathpalia made this decision.
Nikita Jain and the other person argued that bringing back Umesh Sharma as a witness was crucial. They believed he could prove the validity of a Will, which is important to their claim over the property. They mentioned a Supreme Court case to support their argument.
"Questioning Umesh Sharma would be vital for effectively deciding the case," argued the petitioners' lawyer.
The court explained that the rule isn't meant for parties to question witnesses again. Instead, it's for the court to clear things up. The rule was changed in 2002 to prevent misuse.
The court mentioned past decisions, highlighting that bringing back a witness should be done rarely and only for clarification.
The court found no confusion in the existing evidence that needed Umesh Sharma’s testimony. Nikita Jain and the other person had already finished presenting their evidence, and the court saw this request as trying to fix weaknesses in their case.
"It was nothing but to fix the gaps," noted the court in its decision.
Justice Girish Kathpalia concluded that there was no mistake in the trial court's decision. As a result, the request and related applications were dismissed.
