Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004692

CM(M) 1168/2022

Page 1 of 9

$~45(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 1168/2022 &CM APPL. 46945/2022, CM APPL.

46946/2022, CM APPL. 46969/2022

SMT. SUNITA DEVI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Divya Kalra, Adv.

versus

SH. RAJ KUMAR SINGHAL

..... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

%

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

03.11.2022

1.

The order dated 16^th March, 2022, passed by the learned

Additional District Judge (―the learned ADJ‖), in CS DJ 579159-2016

(Raj Kumar Singhal v. Sunita Devi), which forms subject matter of

challenge of challenge in the present petition instituted under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, rejects an application filed by the

petitioner, as the defendant in the suit, under Order XVIII Rule 17 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2.

Given the nature of the controversy in the present case, it is not

necessary to advert to the dispute in the suit. Suffice it to state that,

the learned ADJ deemed it appropriate to direct the defendant (the

present petitioner) to lead evidence first. Accordingly, on 8^th August

2018, affidavit in evidence was filed by the petitioner along with

certain document, without, however, any accompanying application

under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the CPC to take the said documents

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

SINGH NEGI

Signing Date:05.11.2022

15:53:13

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004692

CM(M) 1168/2022

Page 2 of 9

on record. No such application was filed by the petitioner even before

the next date of hearing which was 31^st October 2018.

3.

Accordingly, on 31^st October 2018, on which date there was no

appearance on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, the matter was

passed over and taken up again at 12 Noon on the said date, by which

time, too, no one appeared for the petitioner. A last opportunity was,

therefore, granted to the petitioner, subject to costs of ₹ 3000/-, and

the matter was adjourned to 23^rd July 2019.

4.

Again, on 23^rd January 2019, there was no appearance on behalf

of the petitioner. Accordingly, the evidence of the petitioner was

closed under Order XVII of the CPC.

5.

The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application under Order

XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC, which stands dismissed by the learned

ADJ by the order dated 16^th March 2022 under challenge.

6.

The reasoning of the learned ADJ, in dismissing the petitioner’s

application, is to be found in para 5 to 7 of the impugned order, which

read thus:

―5.

Perusal of the file would show that issues were framed in

the present matter vide order dated 14.03.2018 and keeping in view

the fact that signatures and thumb impression were admitted by the

defendant, opportunity was given to the defendant to lead her

evidence first. On 08.08.2018, affidavit alongwith photocopies and

some documents was filed on behalf of defendant, however no

application was attached for bringing said documents on record. It

was stated on behalf of the Ld.Counsel for defendant that

defendant was out of station hence affidavit of the defendant could

not be prepared earlier and advance copy of the same was not

supplied to the opposite party earlier. On 31.1 0.20 18, Ld.Counsel

for defendant had not appeared and defendant was advised to file

written application and pass over was given for 12 PM, but at 12

PM, none had appeared on behalf of defendant. On that day, last

opportunity was granted to the defendant subject to cost of Rs.

3,000/- and matter was adjourned for 23.01.2019. On 23.01.2019,

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

SINGH NEGI

Signing Date:05.11.2022

15:53:13

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004692

CM(M) 1168/2022

Page 3 of 9

none had appeared on behalf of defendant for leading evidence and

matter was proceeded under Order 17 of CPC and defendant

evidence was closed.

6.