CM(M) 620/2022

Page 1 of 11

$~40 (Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 620/2022, CM 29231/2022 & CM 29232/2022

SHAILLY PRABHA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Mercy Hussain, Adv.

versus

SH. RAJAN CHUGH

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Mr.

Rohan Swarup and Mr. Kiratraj Sardana,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

%

06.07.2022

1.

At the outset, learned Counsel for the respondent draws the

attention of the Court to the fact that there are certain uncharitable

averments directed against the Court below, contained in the petition

filed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner apologizes

for the averments and submits that the petition was not drafted by her.

She agrees to unconditionally withdraw all averments, which are

directed against the Court below.

2.

The issue in controversy is short. Both sides have been heard

and are agreeable to the disposal of this matter without serving a

notice and further pendency before this Court.

3.

The impugned order dated 6^th June 2022 has been passed by the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002523

CM(M) 620/2022

Page 2 of 11

learned Civil Judge in CS SCJ 1352/2021 (Shailly Prabha v. Rajan

Chugh). It dismisses an application filed by the petitioner under

Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), with

costs of ₹5,000/-.

4.

The proceedings emanate out of a suit filed by the petitioner

against the respondent, seeking a restraint against the respondent from

forcibly dispossessing the petitioner, and for issuance of a mandatory

injunction to the respondent to restore the electricity connection in the

premises occupied by the petitioner.

5.

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed the

application which has come to be disposed by the impugned order,

under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC. The application averred that

electricity in the petitioner’s premises had been restored on 18^th

January, 2022 and, that further, the respondent had filed a suit against

the petitioner for possession of the suit property, which was pending

before the learned Additional District Judge (“the learned ADJ”).

Averring that, in these circumstances, the suit filed by the petitioner

had become infructuous, the petitioner sought leave, under Order

XXII Rule 1 of the CPC, to withdraw the suit.

6.

The said application has been dismissed by the impugned order

dated 6^th June 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge. The petitioner,

aggrieved, is before this Court.

7.

The impugned order of the learned Civil Judge notes the fact

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002523

CM(M) 620/2022

Page 3 of 11

that, after the application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC was

filed by the petitioner on 16^th March 2022, and was opposed by

learned Counsel appearing for the defendant, and for Sudeep

Chatterjee (who was also sought to be impleaded in the proceedings

and has, therefore, been referred to in the impugned order as the

“proposed defendant”), the petitioner stopped appearing in the

proceedings. The order further notes the submissions, advanced on

behalf of the respondent, that the petitioner had, in her plaint,

expressed readiness and willingness to pay rent for the suit premises

commencing October 2021 and, though the tenancy had been extended

till 30^th April 2022, the petitioner was defaulting in payment of rent

and was, nonetheless, continuing to remain in possession of the suit

property.

8.

Two counter-claims also came to be filed in the suit, by the

respondent and Sudeep Chatterjee. They were subsequently registered

separately as CS 347/2022 and CS 348/2022. Both these suits are

presently pending before the learned Civil Judge.

9.

The learned Civil Judge further observes, in the impugned order

that, when learned Counsel for the petitioner appeare