Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004529

CM(M) 823/2019

Page 1 of 5

$~9 (Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 823/2019 &CM APPL. 27522/2022

BALJEET SINGH & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Vikas Yadav, Advocate

versus

SUDESH CHHIKARA & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Jaipal Singh, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

%

27.10.2022

1.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

assails the following order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned

Additional Senior Civil Judge (“the learned ASCJ’) in Suit CS

455/2017 (Sudesh Chhikara vs. Baljeet Singh) to the extent the

impugned order allows the application of the respondent – plaintiff

under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(“CPC”) and rejects the application of the petitioners – defendants

under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:

“27.11.2018

Through this common order, both the applications, one filed by

the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151

CPC and another filed by the plaintiff no.l under Order 8 Rule 1

CPC shall be disposed off.

Present: Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Arguments have already been heard.

It is contended by the defendants that the suit is without

any cause of action and the same is liable to be rejected, it is

also contended that there are no documents filed by the

plaintiffs in this case to support their pleadings and the same is

filed just to extract money from them.

Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI

Signing Date:31.10.2022

17:50:20

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004529

CM(M) 823/2019

Page 2 of 5

It is the contention of the plaintiffs and that the plot is

different from the suit property. It is also contended that the

plaintiffs are relying upon a Family Settlement and that the

husband of the plaintiff no.1 was the only son amongst six

daughters.

So far as the application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is

concerned, it is the plea taken by the plaintiff that the

defendants were duly served on 21.04.2017 but have filed the

written statement only on 04.08.2017 with a delay of more than

3 months. It is the plea of the defendants that they are old aged

persons and that the delay may be condoned.

Record perused.

This is a suit for declaration arid mandatory injunction

pending since April, 2017 wherein, issues are yet to be settled.

Admittedly, summons/notice issued to defendant no. 1 received

back refusal report on 21.04.2017 and the similarly, defendant

no.2 was also served on the very same day i.e. 21.04.2017.

Admittedly, written statement was filed by them only on

04.08.2017 and that too with a delay of 2 and half months.

Admittedly, no application for seeking condonation of delay

was filed by the defendants alongwith the written statement for

the reasons best known to them. It need not be mentioned that

at the time of disposal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11

CPC, only the averments of the plaint are to be seen. In these

circumstances, application filed by the defendant under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC is dismissed being devoid of merits and

application filed by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is

allowed. Consequently, the defence of the defendants is hereby

struck off.

Both the applications stand disposed off.

Be listed for Admission/Denial of documents and also for

framing of issues on 15.02.2019.”

2.

Insofar as the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11

of the CPC is concerned, it is clear from a reading of the impugned

order dated 27^th November 2018 that the learned ASCJ has rejected

Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI

Signing Date:31.10.2022

17:50:20

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004529

CM(M) 823/2019

Page 3 of 5

the application with no reason whatsoever. As such, the rejection, by

the learned ASCJ, of the petitioners’ application under Order VII Rule

11 CPC is liable to be set asid