$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 20^th January, 2025 Pronounced on: 5^th May, 2025 + CM(M) 3958/2024 &CM APPL. 70261/2024 (Stay)

MRS DAISY RAJPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Dev Tyagi, Adv alongwith Mr. Satyaprakash Rajpal husband of petitioner.

versus SH PUKHRAJ SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. G. S. Narula & Mr.

Vijender Singh, Advs alongwith respondent.

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned orders dated 08.11.2023, 05.12.2023 & 11.09.2024, passed by the court of learned District Judge-03, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in CS No. 219/2023, titled “Pukhraj Singh Vs. Daisy Rajpal.”

2. The brief background of the case is that respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears, mesne profits/damages and other charges against the petitioner. Summons were issued to the petitioner CM (M) 3958/2024 Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed on 29.05.2203 for 05.08.2023. Since the summons were unserved, fresh summons were issued for 23.09.2023 with direction to serve the petitioner through all the prescribed modes as per the Code of Civil Procedure [“Code”]. Directions were issued that process be also served through WhatsApp and one copy of the process be affixed at the suit premises.

3. Summons were served by the Process Server by way of affixation on 15.09.2023. On 23.09.2023, the Presiding Officer of the court was on leave and therefore the matter got adjourned to 08.11.2023.

4. Petitioner did not file written statement within the stipulated period, and therefore vide order dated 08.11.2023, the defence of the petitioner was struck off. The impugned order dated 08.11.2023 reads as under:-

“08.11.2023 Present: Sh. G.S. Narula, Ld counsel for the plaintiff along with the plaintiff.

Sh. Satya Prakash Rajpal, husband of the defendant.

No WS has been filed by the defendant despite service and lapse of statutory period. On account of non-filing of WS, defence of defendant is hereby struck off.

At this stage, husband of the defendant states that he has instructions from the defendant to settle the matter. On joint request of the parties and upon signing of referral form, parties are referred to Mediation Centre, Patiala House courts, New Delhi. Parties are directed to appear before Ld. Mediator now on 10.11.2023 at 2:00 pm. Put up before this court for report of settlement failing which further proceedings on merits now on

05.12.2023"

In the meanwhile, defendant is directed to bring on record her fresh address within one week from today and supply the same to the opposite side as well.”

5. No settlement took place in the mediation proceedings and therefore on 05.12.2023, the case was adjourned to 11.01.2024 for plaintiff’s evidence. The order dated 05.12.2023 reads as under:-

CM (M) 3958/2024 Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed “05.12.2023 Present: Ld. counsel sh. G.S. Narula for the plaintiff along with plaintiff.

Defendant in person along with her husband.

Considered the last orders. Mediation proceedings have failed between the parties.

Defendant has filed her fresh address in terms of last orders.

Plaintiff may file the amended memo of parties after incorporating the fresh address of the defendant.

Defence of defendant is already struck off.

Considering the nature of suit as well as the fact that defendant has not paid the rent since January 2023 and the lease has already expired on 30.09.2023 and as is requested, shorter date is given.

Relist the matter for entire PE now on 03.01.2024.

At request date stands changed to 11.01.2024.”

6. After recording the evidence of the plaintiff, while the case was listed for final arguments, it appears that petitioner filed three separate applications under Section 151 CPC. All the three applications were dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.09.2024, which reads as under:-

“11 .09.2024 Pr