Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 17 CS DJ 437/24
RITU RASTOGI Vs. RAHUL KUMAR
16.10.2025
Pr.: Sh. Amrit Singh, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff through VC.
None for the defendant.
Heard on the application u/O. 8 Rule 10 CPC. It it
submitted on behalf of the applicant that the defendant has failed
to file the WS within the stipulated time period as per CPC. It is
therefore prayed that WS filed on behalf of the defendant not be
taken on record and judgment u/O. 8 Rule 10 CPC be passed.
Perusal of the record reflects that vide Order dated
18.09.2024, defendant was permitted to file the WS within thirty
days. As per the order-sheet dated 05.11.2025, it appears that the
WS has been filed on behalf of the defendant through e-filing
mode in-compliance of Order dated 18.09.2024 i.e., within a
period of thirty days. As per the Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, judgment
can be passed only if the defendant has failed to file the WS
within the time permitted or fixed by the Court. However, in the
present case, defendant has filed the WS within the time granted
by the Court. Accordingly, application u/O. 8 rule 10 CPC moved
on behalf of the plaintiff stands dismissed.
Be awaited for the defendant.
(PANKAJ ARORA)
District Judge-16, Central
Distt.,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,
16.10.2025
-- 1 of 2 --
At 12.30 p.m.
Pr.: None for the plaintiff
Sh. Nirbhay Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant through
VC.
Be awaited.
(PANKAJ ARORA)
District Judge-16, Central
Distt.,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,
16.10.2025
At 2.00 p.m.
Pr.: None for the plaintiff
Sh. Nirbhay Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant through
VC.
Fresh
vakalatnama is filed on behalf of the defendant.
Same is taken on record.
Both the parties are directed to file their respective
affidavits of admission-denial of documents with advance copy
to opposite party.
Put up for filing of replication, if any, admission-denial of
documents and for framing of issues on 04.11.2025.
(PANKAJ ARORA)
District Judge-16, Central
Distt.,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,
16.10.2025
-- 2 of 2 --