Back
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Prasad Process Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized Representative – Appellant
Versus
Kasturi Rajan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 07.10.2023 passed by ADJ, Patiala House Court, New Delhi (`Trial Court'), in CS No. 59209/2016, titled as Vatsala Vescio v. Kasturi Rajan & Ors., dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner herein i.e., defendant no.5 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') and Order XVI Rule 1 CPC.
1.1. The Petitioner herein is the defendant no.5. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are defendant nos.1 to 4 and Respondent No.5 is the plaintiff before the Trial Court.
2. The learned counsels for the Respondents No.1 to 4 and Respondent No.5 respectively have entered appearance.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner relying on the proceedings recorded in the order dated 01.08.2023 was passed in CM(M) 1206/2023; without looking at the merits of the application. He states that it is a matter of record that the Petitioner herein was not represented before this Court when order dated 01.08.2023 was passed in CM(M) 1206/2023. He states that therefore, the Petitio
The need for the Trial Court to decide the application of the Petitioner on its own merits and the imposition of legal costs as a condition for the liberty granted.
The court's discretion in permitting written statements and granting adjournments should be exercised judiciously, and unnecessary adjournments should be avoided under Order 17 CPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities, and in deserving cases, delay in filing pleadings can be condoned subject....
The main legal point established is that the appropriate remedy for challenging orders passed by the Trial Court in a civil suit is to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Order 43 Rule (1)(r) ....
The court has the discretion to allow the recall of an order but can impose appropriate directions to ensure compliance and prevent further delay.
A petitioner cannot file a petition after accepting costs paid by the respondent without disclosing this fact, and the Trial Court's exercise of discretion in condoning the delay in filing the applic....
Delay in filing written statement can be condoned subject to compensatory costs, and disputes should be decided on merits rather than technicalities.
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
