Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Mansi Jain - Appellant
Versus
Abhinav Jain - Respondent
CM(M) 331 of 2022 & CM Appl. 17532 of 2022
Decided On : 08-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filings due to pandemic considerations. (Para 1 , 1 , 5 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. argument against acceptance of delayed written statement. (Para 2 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. scope of court's jurisdiction under article 227. (Para 3 , 10 , 19) |
| 4. non-payment of costs as a grounds for refusal. (Para 4 , 11 , 17) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 22 , 23) |
1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the following order dated 03rd March, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ"), in CSDJ No. 6668/2018:
CSDJ No. 6668/18
Mansi Jain vs. Abhinav Jain
03.03.2022
Present: Ms. Manju Jain, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant in person.
An application u/o IX Rule 7 R/w Section 114 and 151 CPC has been moved by defendant for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 30.11.2021 and review of the order passed by the court on aforesaid date.
Defendant no.1 Sh. Abhinav Jain, also happens to be an Advocate, states that due to pandemic conditions he could not pay the cost, though, the WS was filed on record. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant is taking all steps for delaying the matter.
The court has considered the rival arguments. The present suit is suit for Possession/Damages and Mesne Profit which was filed on 21.12.2018. Opportunity has been granted repeatedly to the defendant and cost was imposed. Though, as such no ground for recall order is made out however keeping in view the pandemic condition, the WS being filed on record and fact that defendant should be given an opportunity to defend his case, the court take lenient view that delay caused cannot be compensated in terms of money, the application is accordingly sympathetically considered and allowed subject to further cost of Rs.10,000/- (Total cost Rs.25,000/-).
At this stage, part cost of Rs.15000/- paid. Let remaining cost of Rs.10,000/- be paid within one week from today. Receipt thereof be filed on record. If receipt is filed on record, WS filed on 30.07.2019 be taken on record. Replication thereof if any, be filed within 30 days from today. Copy be supplied to the other side.
Put up for admission and denial of documents and framing of issues on 04.05.2022."
2. The sole contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned ADJ erred in allowing the written statement of the respondent to be taken on record subject to payment of costs, and on that ground, allowing the application of the defendant, filed under Order IX, Rule 7, read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
3. The only issue before the Court is, therefore, whether, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, subject to well understood constraints, a case for interference with the exercise of jurisdiction, by the learned ADJ, in the impugned order dated 03rd March, 2022, can be said to exist.
4. On 17th July, 2019, the following order was passed by the learned ADJ:
"CS No. 6668/18
Mansi Jain Vs. Abhinav Jain
17.07.2019
Present: Ms. Anju Jain, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 in person and also representing defendant No. 2 An application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC is filed on behalf of the plaintiff, same is taken on record.
Copy supplied.
Also, two applications are filed on behalf of the defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC and Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC, same are also taken on record. Copies thereof are also supplied to the plaintiff.
By virtue of the application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC plaintiff is praying that the defence of the defendant be struck off. Contrary to it, defendant vide their application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC has prayed that copies of documents filed along with the plaint has not been supplied to them and a prayer is made that it be supplied and an opportunity be given to the defendant to file WS/reply.
Submissions
The court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory, allowing for discretion in permitting late defenses under mitigating circumstances, without the ability to substitute the lower court's deci....
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the 120-day limitation for filing a written statement and the lack of discretion for condonation of delay, as supported by relevant legal provisions an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Article 227 does not warrant interference with the impugned order, and that the Original Side Rules do not apply to the case.
Courts must provide reasoned orders when deciding procedural applications to uphold fair trial rights and ensure proper judicial process.
The court emphasized the need for granting procedural justice by allowing petitioners to seek condonation of delay in filing their written statement despite initial rejection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the stipulated period for filing written statements can be affected by external factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic, and a statutory right c....
Civil Suit - Jurisdiction of Court - Only wrong decision may not be a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of ....
Closure of the right to file a written statement by the trial court can be revisited if the parties agree, with costs imposed ensuring fairness in the proceedings.
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
