Interim Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 15 CS SCJ 2416/23
Pawan Mittal Vs. Banga Sarees
04.11.2025
Present: Ms. Shaifali Gandhi, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Sobhit Gupta, Ld. counsel for defendant.
1. Today the case is fixed for arguments on application
U/S 151 CPC filed on behalf of the defendant for recalling the
order dated 08.08.2024 whereby the right to file WS by the
defendant was closed.
2. Arguments heard on behalf of both the parties.
3. Through the aforesaid application the defendant is
seeking recall of order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the court, vide
which the right of the defendant to file the WS has been closed. It
is submitted that defendant i.e. Smt. Renu Banga being a Senior
Citizen does not regularly sit at the shop and come to the shop
only occasionally. The shop is minimally staff with only one or
two persons who are neither authorized nor capable of handling
the legal documents and hence, it appears that plaintiff may have
manipulated the service of process. The plaintiff informed the
son of the defendant that a case has been filed against him and
plaintiff was willingly ready to settle the matter. Therefore, in
good faith, son of the defendant appeared in the court on
19.12.2024 without any advocate with the hope that dispute will
be settled.
4. Reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the
application U/S 151 CPC. Plaintiff submits that the present
application has been filed under wrong provisions of law. It is
submitted that defendant was duly served with legal notice on
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
30.09.2023 and the defendant also duly replied to the said legal
notice vide reply dated 07.10.2023. Therefore, the defendant was
well aware about the present case. Moreover, the summons of the
present suit were also served upon the defendant through
Whatsapp on 27.01.2024. Therefore, the court had given multiple
opportunities to the defendant to appear before the court before
closing her right to file WS on 19.12.2024. The present
application is barred by limitation.
5. The perusal of the record shows that summons of the
present suit were served upon the defendant on 27.01.2024. As
per the tracking reports filed by the plaintiff summons of the suit
were also delivered to the defendant on 27.01.2024 thrugh
Registered Post. After expiry of statutory period to file the WS,
the right to file the WS of the defendant was closed on
08.08.2024.
6. Ld. counsel for the defendant cannot show any
irregularity in the service of the summons upon the defendant.
The defendant has failed to prove anything which shows that she
was not aware about the present case.
7. On court query, Ld. counsel for the defendant has
not confirmed that the mobile number upon which summons
were served did not belong to the defendant.
8. The court has the power to extend the statutory
period of filing the WS upto 90 days for reasons to be recorded in
writing. In the present case, the right of the defendant to file WS
was closed after 191 days of service of summons upon the
defendant. Defendant has failed to explain the delay in appearing
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
before the court. Moreover, even after appearing in the present
case on 19.12.2024, the present applicatin alongwith the
vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the defendant on
08.05.2025 i.e. after delay of about 5 months. Therefore, the
defendant is guilty of laches and negligent in pursuing the
present case.
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no ground
is made out to recall the order dated 08.08.2024.
10. Accordingly, the application filed U/S 151 CPC is
hereby dismissed.
11. The plaintiff is directed to file list of witness and the
evidence affidavit of the plaintiff, if not already filed, on or
before the NDOH alongwith advance copy to the opposite side.
Put up for PE on 13.01.2026.
(SUNIL KHATRI)
Civil Judge-06 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi/04.11.2025
-- 3 of 3 --