Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Sh Prakash Chand – Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
CM(M) 863 of 2023
Decided On : 22-05-2023
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908 - Urgency in Protecting Property - Substantive Amendment to the Plaint - Genuine Urgency in Application
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought protection for a property and a substantive amendment to the plaint, citing urgency under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908. The Trial Court had not considered the urgency and had adjourned the matter without addressing the genuine urgency expressed by the petitioner's counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court had not taken up the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908 and had not considered the genuine urgency expressed by the petitioner's counsel. The Court directed the Trial Court to take up the application on the next date of hearing and dispose it of in accordance with the law, ensuring no further adjournments.
Issues: Failure of Trial Court to address urgency under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908, and failure to consider the genuine urgency expressed by the petitioner's counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the failure of the Trial Court to address the urgency and the genuine urgency expressed by the petitioner's counsel, leading to the direction to the Trial Court to take up the application and dispose it of without further adjournments.
Final Decision: The petition along with the pending application was disposed of, with the direction to the Trial Court to take up the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908 on the next date of hearing and ensure its disposal without further adjournments.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 27238/2023 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 863/2023 & CM APPL. 27237/2023 (for stay)
3. After hearing Mr. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the orders of the learned Trial Court from the order dated 24.01.2023 uptil 04.05.2023 it is apparent that the learned Trial Court has, even on early hearing applications, simply issued notice and adjourned the matter for the next date of hearing without considering the urgency as urged in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908.
4. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel also submits that the property which was sought to be protected stands demolished as on date by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which is against the case of the petitioner.
5. Mr. Mittal also submits that substantive amendment to the plaint was also sought by way of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908, whereby the challenge to the Will dated 18.05.1982, of the testator propounded by the respondent and which was intriguingly and surprisingly, got formally registered on 02.11.2022, purported to be the Will of the late grandfather.
6. Mr. Mittal submits that the late grandfather had unfortunately expired in the year 1984, so the registry itself is post facto, the death of the testator.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions as also perusing the daily orders passed by the learned Trial Court, it appears that the learned Trial Court has not taken up the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908. The urgency as expressed by Mr. Mittal seems to be genuine.
8. Though, the respondent have been served through counsel on advance notice, yet no one appears.
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served, in case learned Trial Court is directed to take up the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 on the next date of hearing i.e., 29.05.2023 and dispose it of in accordance with law.
10. The learned Trial Court shall ensure that no further adjournments are sought on 29.05.2023 and the hearing, as directed above shall take place.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the petition along with pending application stands disposed of.
The court considered the delay in seeking amendment of pleadings and the relevance of the documents sought to be filed, highlighting the importance of timely filing and the need for cogent reasons fo....
The court has the discretion to allow exemption from filing certified copies of annexures, subject to all just exceptions, and can direct the disposal of urgent matters in accordance with law.
Urgency faced by senior citizens and the need to protect their possession of the suit property influenced the court's decision to maintain status quo until the First Appellate Court hears and decides....
Amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial are restricted and require demonstration of due diligence to be permitted.
Timely hearing of applications in civil proceedings is essential, with courts expected to adhere to deadlines and avoid unnecessary delays.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
