CS(OS) 2961/2014

Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision : 23^rd August, 2022

+

CS(OS) 2961/2014

DABUR INDIA LTD

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr.

Sudhir

K.

Makkar,

Senior

Advocate with Ms. Saumya Gupta,

Ms. Veera Mathai and Mr. Sanjay

Jha, Advocates

versus

MANI KANT DANG & ORS

..... Defendants

Through:

Ms. Sonam Anand, Advocate for

LR’s of defendant No.3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

O.A. 35/2018

1.

The present chamber appeal has been filed on behalf of legal

representatives of the defendant no.3 impugning the order dated 9^th March,

2018 passed by the Joint Registrar, whereby the application filed on behalf

of the appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement

was dismissed.

2.

The present suit for specific performance was filed in 2014 seeking

specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 22^nd December, 1992,

12^th August, 1993 and 10^th November, 1993 and execution of sale deed in

respect of property bearing no. 1 (old no. 3), Factory Road, New Delhi-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003267

CS(OS) 2961/2014

Page 2 of 9

110029. The suit was instituted against the defendants no.1, 2 and 3, who are

brothers and the defendants no.4 and 5, who are children of pre-deceased

brother of the defendants no.1, 2 and 3.

3.

Counsel appeared on behalf of the defendant no.3 on 14^th July, 2015

and sought a complete set of the paper book. It was noted in the order dated

28^th August, 2015 that the complete set of documents were supplied to the

defendant no.3 on 7^th August, 2015 and that written statement shall be filed

by the defendant no.3 within four weeks from 7^th August, 2015.

4.

In the order dated 5^th November, 2015 passed by the Joint Registrar, it

was noted that the defendant no.3 has been suffering from cancer and the

counsel for the defendant no.3 undertook to file written statement along with

an application for condonation of delay. Subsequently, vide order dated 20^th

November, 2015, the right of the defendant no.3 to file written statement

was closed.

5.

Thereafter, counsel appeared on behalf of the defendant no.3 on

subsequent dates, but never sought time to file written statement. The

defendant no.3 expired on 23^rd July, 2016 and an application being I.A.

No.13559/2016 under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (CPC) for substitution of the legal heirs of the defendant no.3 was filed

on behalf of the plaintiff and the said application was allowed on 17^th April,

2017 and legal heirs of the defendant no.3 were taken on record.

6.

An application in I.A. No.4936/2017 was filed on behalf of the legal

heirs of the defendant no.3, seeking permission to file written statement,

which was dismissed as withdrawn on 9^th October, 2017. Thereafter, I.A.

No.14339/2017 was filed on behalf of the legal heirs of the defendant no.3

seeking condonation of delay of 807 days in filing the written statement. The

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003267

CS(OS) 2961/2014

Page 3 of 9

said application was dismissed by the Joint Registrar vide order dated 9^th

March, 2018. The relevant observations of the impugned order are set out

below:

17.04.2017. The order dated 20.11.2015, regarding closure of

right to file written statement of defendant no.3, was never

challenged or sought to be recalled at any point of time either by

the defendant no.3 during his lifetime or by the LRs after his

death.

By way of the present application, the