Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 17 CS SCJ 580/25
VIKAS JAITLY (SR. CITIZEN) Vs. MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF
DELHI
19.03.2026
Present : Sh. Ajay Malhotra, Ld counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Nivedita, Ld. proxy counsel for defendant no. 1 /MCD
Defendant no. 2 in person.
Sh. Arpit Prakash, Ld counsel for defendant no.3 through V/C.
Defendant no.2 has filed written submissions alongwith two
applications out of which, one application is for withdrawal of application under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 04.12.2025and another application is for correction
of typographical error in the page no.1 of index. Copy supplied.
Ld counsel for plaintiff has raised objections to the application for
seeking correction in the index on the ground that the same is vague and it has
not been specified as to which index is to be corrected.
Upon court query, defendant no.2 submits that he intends to correct
the index annexed with the amended written statement filed on the LDOH
wherein inadvertently ‘plaintiff’ is mentioned instead of ‘defendant no2’.
At this stage, Ld counsel for plaintiff has again raised objection to
the amended written statement on the ground that the written statement has not
been taken on record, therefore, there is no question to take the amended written
statement on record. It is further submitted that the contents of amended written
statement have not been verified as per the provisions of CPC. It is further
submitted that the affidavit annexed with the written statement is not in
accordance with law.
-- 1 of 3 --
Upon query, defendant no.2 has submitted that he does not wish to
engage a counsel for himself as according to him no counsel would understand
the true facts of the case and he has apprehension that he would not be
adequately represented by any counsel, therefore, he has chosen to defend this
case himself. Be that as it may, on the LDOH defendant no.2 was granted last
opportunity to file proper written statement as per law, however, despite
repeated opportunities granted by this Court in view of his old age and health,
defendants no.2 has failed to file proper written statement as per the mandate of
Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. This Court is of the view that granting another
opportunity would cause further delay in the proceedings, hence right of
defendant no.2 to file written statement stands closed.
At this stage, Ld counsel for plaintiff has submitted that another
case has been filed by defendant no.2 herein against the plaintiff herein which
is pending before the court of Ld. DJ-11 / Central/ Tis Hazari Courts where
defendant no.2 is being represented by a counsel.
On query, defendant no.2 has not denied the submissions of Ld
counsel for plaintiff which clearly shows that the defendant no.2 is trying to
blow hot and cold at the same time.
In view of the above, both the aforesaid applications and
application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stand disposed off.
At this stage, defendant no.2 has submitted in a loud voice that his
submission be also recorded to the effect that he is also opposing the averments
made in the plaint and the documents filed alongwith the plaint are not certified
copies, therefore, could not have been taken on record. It is also submitted that
the interim order has been obtained by the plaintiff upon false grounds.
Ld counsel for plaintiff has opposed the submissions made by
defendant no.2.
-- 2 of 3 --
Put up for arguments on application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 &
2 CPC on 21.05.2026.
Interim orders to continue till the NDOH.
(Umesh Kumar)
JSCC-Cum-ASCJ-Cum-Guardian Judge-02
Central, Tis Hazari Courts/19.03.2026
-- 3 of 3 --