Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 12 CS SCJ 1442/25
RAKESH JAIN Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MISHRA
17.08.2026
Present: Sh. Harshil Gupta, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff through VC.
Sh. Deepak Mishra, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
Cost of Rs. 2,000/- has been paid. Proof by way of screenshot furnished.
It is contended by Ld. counsel for defendant that same is towards to leave to
enter appearance as allowed vide order dt. 07.07.2026.
Some time is sought for preferring an application u/s 151 C.P.C for waiver
of cost imposed vide deciding the application u/s 151 C.P.C vide order dt. 07.07.2026.
Said request is vehemently opposed by ld. counsel for plaintiff on the
grounds that defendant is deliberately delaying the present matter. It is further stated that
the counsel for the defendant has deliberately not disclosed that they had challenged the
order dt. 07.07.2026 to the extent of the cost before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and
since the court was not inclined to entertain the said request, the petition was withdrawn.
It is further contended that the counsel for the defendant had taken a malafide excuse of
the strike of the bar by pressing for the application u/o 37 rule 3 r/w rule 3 (7) r/w
section 151 C.P.C.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that the
averments/allegations are premature and he will file all the requisite documents
alongwith the application u/s 151 C.P.C.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for defendant requests for adjudication of the
application u/o 4 rule 1 (3) r/w order 7 rule 14 r/w order 37 rule 3 (1) r/w section 151
C.P.C.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has vehemently opposed the said
submission and has stated that the Ld. Counsel for defendant has not sought the leave to
defend and has been preferring application after application mischievously. It is further
-- 1 of 2 --
stated that none of the applications so preferred by the defendant can be entertained until
and unless he has been granted leave to defend. It is stated that the conduct of the
defendant is defeating the legislative intent and applications, if any, could be preferred if
leave to defend is granted.
Arguments on application u/o 4 rule 1 (3) r/w order 7 rule 14 r/w 37 rule 3
(1) r/w section 151 C.P.C heard.
Ld. Counsel for defendant has also furnished additional written submissions
in support of the abovesaid application. Copy supplied.
Put up for orders on application u/o 4 rule 1 (3) r/w order 7 rule 14 r/w 37
rule 3 (1) r/w section 151 C.P.C on 22.08.2026.
(Himanshu Sehloth)
Civil Judge-02 (Central), Delhi
17.08.2026
-- 2 of 2 --