Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Roopa – Appellant
Versus
Abhijeet Sangwan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 15th October 2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (learned ADJ) adjudicating the application of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) in CS 1125/2018 (Abhijeet Sangwan v. Roopa), whereby the learned ADJ has rejected the said application.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on or around 29th July 2022.
3. To a query from the Court, as to why this Court should entertain such a challenge when nearly 3 years after the order under challenge have passed, Mr. Anilendra Kant Sriv
Inordinate delays in challenging court orders can bar the right to relief, as established by settled law, emphasizing the need for timely legal actions.
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 emphasized the necessity for independent consideration of applications under procedural rules, regardless of the outcomes of interconnected applications.
Procedural rules should not obstruct justice; amendments to plaints should be allowed to ensure real controversies are addressed, especially when no vested rights have accrued to the opposing party.
The right of the petitioner to contest the matter in execution proceedings and the imposition of appropriate cost to allow participation, as provided under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC.
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 determined the impropriety of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, reiterating it does not constitute an execution petition.
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
Listen Article