Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 17 CS SCJ 836/24
SEEMA KASHYAP Vs. GURUCHARAN SINGH PAHWA AND ANR.
21.04.2025
Present: Sh. Khushbir Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff with plaintiff.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1.
Defendant no.2 is already ex-parte vide order dated 29.01.2025.
Matter is at the stage of filing of written statement and reply to the
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w 151 CPC on behalf of defendant
no.1.
An application is filed under Section 151 C.P.C. on behalf of
defendant no.1 for giving direction to the plaintiff to supply legible copy of the
plaint and document to the Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1. Same is taken on
record. Copy supplied.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of defendant no.1 by the
Counsel Sh. Satish Kumar.
The application is strongly opposed by Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff as copy of the plaint and documents was already supplied by way of
affixation upon the defendant no.1 as per the summons received on 20.11.2024.
Further, copy of the plaint and documents had already been supplied in the
court by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff to the then counsel Sh. Shiv Kumar
Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 on 29.01.2025.
It is submitted by Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.1 that defendant no.1 has now engaged Sh. Satish Kumar as his Counsel and
Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma is no more the Counsel for defendant no.1 and the
copy of the plaint and documents available with Sh. Satish Kumar was the copy
-- 1 of 2 --
handed over to him by defendant no.1. Heard. Perused.
Perusal of the record reflects that defendant no.1 was served by
way of affixation on 19.11.2024 as per the summons received back on
20.11.2024. Further, already copy of the plaint and documents were again
supplied on 29.01.2025 by Sh. Khusbir Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff in the
court upon the request made by Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma, then counsel of
defendant no.1. Even thereafter on the LDOH i.e. 20.03.2025 it was submitted
by Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma, then counsel for defendant no.1 that he shall be
filing written statement with appropriate application for condonation of delay
within two weeks from 20.03.2025. No written statement has been filed on
behalf of defendant no.1 despite lapse of more than 90 days from the date of
service i.e. 19.11.2024. In these circumstances, it appears that non filing of the
written statement by defendant no.1 is deliberate and this application is filed
only to further protract the proceedings. Accordingly, this court deems it fit to
dismiss the application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed on behalf of defendant
no.1. Same is disposed off accordingly.
Despite lapse of statutory period, the defendant no.1 has not filed
the written statement, hence, defence of the defendant no.1 is struck off.
Put up for PE/arguments on the application under Order 39 Rule 1
& 2 r/w 151 C.P.C. on 11.06.2025.
(Aakash Sharma)
Civil Judge-02 (Central), Delhi
21.04.2025
-- 2 of 2 --