The need for disputes to be resolved on merits rather than technicalities, and the consideration of the petitioner's defense to serve the interest of justice and the respondents, bringing finality to the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the ADJ-04, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS DJ No. 758/2019, titled as `Sunita Kashyap @ Sunita Sharma & Ors. v. Charu Walia', whereby the Trial Court dismissed the following applications filed by the Petitioner:

1.1. Application under Order VIII Rule 10 for recalling of order dated 30.05.2022 and taking on record the written statement;

1.2. Application under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in filing the written statement; and

1.3. Application under Section 151 of CPC for recalling order dated 31.08.2022 and taking on record the written statement.

1.4. The Petitioner is the original defendant in the civil suit and the Respondents are the original plaintiffs.

2. The Respondents filed a civil suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits/damages in respect of Shop No. 1825, Gali No. 137, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, New Delhi (`tenanted premises') against the Petitioner herein.

2.1. The summons was issued by the Trial Court to the Petitioner on 01.11.2021, returnable on 18.01.2022. The counsel for the Petitioner entered appearance on 18.01.2022 and informed the Trial Court that only copy of one application for waiver of cost was received with the summons, however, no copy of the plaint was provided.

2.2. The suit was thereafter listed on 05.03.2022, however, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 30.05.2022, on which date the Trial Court closed the right of the Petitioner to file the written statement and listed the matter for plaintiff evidence.

2.3. The Petitioner thereafter filed the aforesaid applications (referred to at paragraph 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of this order) before the Trial Court, which were dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 11.07.2023.

3. This matter was first listed before this Court on 02.08.2023, when the learned counsel for the Petitioner in order to show his bona fides and substantiate the stand taken in this petition agreed to handover the physical, peaceful and vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the Respondents.

3.1. The matter has been taken up today and both the parties confirm that physical, peaceful and vacant possession of the subject property has been handed over to the Respondents.

4. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the reason why the Petitioner herein did not file the written statement was on account of the ongoing mediation talks between the parties and the counsel. He states that couple of days before 30.05.2022 i.e., the date of hearing before Trial Court, the counsel for the Respondents, Sh. Ikrant Sharma, had approached the counsel for the Petitioner to settle the dispute. He states that after a brief discussion the counsel for the parties arrived at an amicable solution, wherein the Petitioner was to handover the vacant and physical possession of the tenanted premises and the Respondents were to waive off the damages and arrears of rent. He states that on account of the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner bona fide did not file the written statement so that the matter could be amicably settled and disposed off without further proceedings.

4.1. He states that the adjudication of the issue of mesne profits without considering his defence will cause grave prejudice to the Petitioner.

4.2. He states that he will file his affidavit of admission denial of documents filed by the Plaintiff within one (1) week.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the Respondents states that she has no objection if the written statement is taken on record subject to imposition of legal costs. She states that she, however, does not admit to the averments made in the petition justifying the delay in the non-filing of the written statement.

6. This Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner has sho