Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 14 RC ARC 483/25
RAJKUMAR BARI Vs. SRI RAM JINDAL
30.07.2026
Present: Ms. Ashi Nigam and Ms. Rashmi Gaur, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma and Ms. Ipshita Sharma, Ld. Counsel for
the respondent No. 1 along-with respondent No. 1.
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 along-
with respondent No. 2.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. The same is
taken on record.
Respondent No. 1 is present in the Court today and wishes to give a
statement to the effect that he does not wish to contest the case since his wife had
sold the demised premises to the respondent No. 2.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does
not wish to drop respondent No. 1 from the memo of parties since he is the
original tenant and he has illegally sub-let the demised premises to the respondent
No. 2 (as pleaded in paragraph No. 9 of Annexure A to the present petition).
Accordingly, the matter needs to proceed on merits.
An application u/o 8 Rule 1 CPC has been filed by respondent No. 2
seeking permission to file WS and set aside the order dated 07.05.2026 by way of
which right to file WS was closed.
Reply has already been e-filed. Hard copy already supplied.
Arguments heard.
Put up for orders at 4.00 PM.
(Devanshu Sajlan)
CCJ-cum-ARC (Central)
THC/Delhi/30.07.2026
At 4.00 PM
Present : None.
By way of the present application, the respondent No. 2 has sought
liberty to file the WS and has sought recall of the order dated 07.05.2026.
Without entering into the merits of the reasons assigned by the
-- 1 of 2 --
applicant for the delay, I am of the view that the matter is still at a nascent stage.
The petitioner’s evidence has not yet commenced and no irretrievable prejudice
would be caused to the petitioner if one opportunity is granted to the respondent
No. 2 to place the WS on record. It is well settled that, at the initial stage of the
proceedings, courts ought to adopt a liberal approach so as to afford the parties an
effective opportunity to contest the matter on merits, subject to appropriate terms.
However, the delay in filing the WS is substantial and cannot be
overlooked. Accordingly, the present application is allowed, subject to payment
of costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the petitioner on the next date of hearing.
The WS filed by the respondent No. 2 is taken on record, subject to
deposit/payment of the aforesaid costs on the next date of hearing.
Application stands disposed of.
Replication to the WS, if any, be filed within 30 days with advance
copy to the opposite party.
Put up for further proceedings on 17.09.2026.
(Devanshu Sajlan)
CCJ-cum-ARC (Central)
THC/Delhi/30.07.2026
-- 2 of 2 --