Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 8 CS DJ 174/24
SUNIL SAGAR AND ANR Vs. VEER SINGH GAUTAM
15.05.2024
Present: Sh. Rishabh Jain, ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Ajay Gautam, ld. Proxy counsel for Sh. Rakesh
Kumar, ld. Counsel for defendant.
WS alongwith reply to the application under Order
39 Rule 1& 2 r/w Sec.151 CPC and documents as per the list of
documents and Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of
defendant. Vakalatnama and reply to application under Order 39
Rule 1& 2 r/w Sec.151 CPC be taken on record.
Perusal of Process Server report shows that
defendant was served in the present matter on 14.03.2024 and
the present WS came to be filed on 03.05.2024. Ld. counsel for
the plaintiff has objected to the same being taken on record on
the ground that since the said WS has been filed beyond the
stipulated period of 30 days and the same is not even
accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay,
the same is liable to be rejected for want of plausible
explanation for delay. However, ld. Counsel for the defendant
has prayed for the same to be taken on record in the interest of
justice.
Heard. Perused.
Though, admittedly, the WS in the present case has
been filed beyond the stipulated period of 30 days but the same
is very much within the extended allowable period of 90 days
from the service of summons. It is true that no explanation has
been offered by the defendant for delay in filing the WS but at
the same time this Court cannot loose sight of the settled law
that provisions of Order 8 rule 1 CPC being in the domain of a
-- 1 of 2 --
procedural law should be liberally construed and also the notion
of justice requires that a matter should be adjudicated on merits
after giving due opportunities to the parties and further keeping
in view that legal principle, when technicalities are pitted against
the substantial justice, the Court should endeavour to advance
the cause of substantial justice. Moreover, when gross
negligence or lack of bonafide are not attributable to the party,
he should ordinarily be not denied of opportunity to put forth his
case. In view of this settled law, further keeping in view that
delay is hardly of 07 days, the delay in filing the WS is hereby
condoned. Let the WS be taken on record alongwith the reply
to the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2
CPC. Replication, if any, be filed on or before the next date of
hearing with an advance copy to the opposite party at least 10
days prior to the next date of hearing.
At this stage, ld. Counsel for defendant seeks time
to address the arguments on the application under Order 39 Rule
1& 2 r/w Sec.151 CPC submitting that main counsel is not
available today.
At request, let the matter be adjourned for
arguments on application under Order 39 Rule 1& 2 r/w Sec.151
CPC on 12.08.2024.
However, parties are directed to main status quo in
respect of the possession as well ownership in respect of the
suit property till next date of hearing.
(NEERAJ SHARMA)
District Judge-04, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
15.05.2024
-- 2 of 2 --