* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 16th January, 2024 % Pronounced on:20^th February, 2024 + CS(OS) 485/2021 SACHIN KUMAR ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Counsel (appearance not given).

versus RAVI AHUJA & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Saumitra Singhal, Advocate for D-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

I.A. 25981/2023 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 by defendant No. 3 for condonation of 329 days’ delay in filing O.A.

144/2023)

1. By way of present application, the applicant/defendant No. 3 seeks condonation of 329 days’ delay in filing the O.A. 144/2023.

2. For the reasons and grounds stated in the present application, the application is allowed, the delay of 329 days in filing the O.A. 144/2023 is condoned .

3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

I.A. 25982/2023 (u/S 151 of CPC, 1908 by defendant No. 3 for condonation of 6 days’ delay in re-filing the present application)

4. By way of present application, the applicant/defendant No. 3 seeks Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 485/2021 Page 1 of 6 condonation of 06 days’ delay in re-filing the present application.

5. For the reasons and grounds stated in the present application, the application is allowed, the delay of 6 days in re-filing the present application is condoned .

6. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

O.A. 144/2023 (u/Ch. II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 by defendant No. 3 against the Order dated 06.12.2022 closing the right of defendant No. 3 to file the Written Statement)

7. By way of present Chamber Appeal, the appellant/defendant No. 3 assails the Order dated 06.12.2022 vide which the Joint Registrar has closed the right of appellant/defendant No. 3 to file the Written Statement.

8. The plaintiff had filed the Suit for Partition, Rendition of Accounts, Possession and Permanent Injunction against the defendants who are the siblings. The father of the parties had expired on 07.04.2021 and their mother expired on 23.05.2021 leaving behind the properties as detailed in Schedule-I and II of the Plaint which are the subject matter of the Suit.

9. The summons were issued to all the defendants vide Order dated 08.10.2021. All the defendants were served as recorded in Order dated 11.11.2021 and were thereafter, referred to mediation. The mediation did not succeed as has been observed in the Order dated 24.08.2021. The appellant/defendant No. 3 has submitted that since it was a family dispute, he could not engage the Lawyer and the Written Statement could not be filed. The appellant/defendant No. 3 engaged the Lawyer subsequently, who appeared in the Court on 06.12.2022, but since the Written Statement was not filed, the right to file the Written Statement was closed by the learned Registrar.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 485/2021 Page 2 of 6

10. To assail the Order dated 06.12.2022, an Application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC, 1908”) had been filed by the then counsel, but it was under objections with the observation that it may be made an O.A. (Chamber Appeal) for setting aside the Order of the Joint Registrar. Since, the objections could not be removed, the Application was under scrutiny and the Chamber Appeal could not be filed within time. The new counsel was engaged who has filed the present Chamber Appeal.

11. It is submitted that the impugned Order dated 06.12.2022 is erroneous in facts and law applicable in the present case. The Joint Registrar had failed to consider that the matter was pending in mediation till the last date of hearing i.e., 24.08.2022 which was fixed for the report from the mediation Centre.

12. Further, the right of the answering appellant/defendant No. 3 would be affected if he is not permitted to contest the claim of partition.

13. A prayer is, therefore, made that the impugned Order dated 06.12.2022 be s