Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS 53/25
Mrs. Abha Rathore Vs. Apoorva Gandhi
29.05.2025
Present: Ms. Jyoti Gulati, ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. D.K. Sharma, Ld. for defendant no.2,4 and 5.
None for D1 & 3.
Reply to the application u/o 47 rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC
is filed by D2,4 and 5. Copy supplied.
Arguments heard on the application.
Order on IA u/o 47 rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC.
It is submitted that the Applicant/ Plaintiff is aggrieved of
order dated 03.04.2025. The plaintiff has filed the present suit, inter alia
seeking suit for recovery of possession, recovery of money and
injunctions both permanent and mandatory. It is further submitted that on
20.02.2025, counsel on behalf of the defendant no.-2 appeared and
submitted that the legible copies of documents along with documents
were not supplied hence the legible copies of the documents were
supplied to the counsel for defendant on his whatsapp number. It is
further submitted that on 03.04.2025, Ms. Seema appeared on behalf of
the defendant no.-2,4 and 5 and submits that she has been newly
appointed and sought time to file Written Statement. The Hon’ble Court
was pleased to grant one week time to file written statement on this
ground. It is further submitted that vakalatnama filed on 03.04.2025 is of
the counsel who has sent reply on 29.10.2024 to the legal notice sent by
………..1/5…...
-- 1 of 5 --
……….2/5…..
plaintiff, who has appeared on behalf of Defendant no. 2, 4, and 5 on
20.02.2025 and to whom the legible copy of documents were supplied on
20.02.2025 however on 03.04.2025 the counsel appearing on behalf of
defendant no. 2, 4, and 5 made a false submission before this Hon’ble
Court that they are newly appointed counsel and sought one week time
to file the written statement. It is further submitted that the applicant/
plaintiff very respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court that the
wrong submissions on behalf of the defendants before this Hon’ble Court
on 03.04.2025 in the captioned matter was intentional and to misuse the
legal process and delay the delivery of justice. It is also submitted that
the applicant/ plaintiff has good case in their favor and against the
defendants. The balance of convenience also lies in favor of the
applicant/ plaintiff. If the application of the applicant is not allowed that
the applicant would face irreparable loss. That the paramount
consideration for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of
justice. It is further submitted that the applicant/ plaintiff in the above
circumstances is preferring the present application seeking necessary
orders and directions from this Hon’ble Court for recalling and
modification of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court.
No prejudice shall be caused to any of the party if the present application
is allowed and the order dated 03.04.2025 is reviewed considering the
present facts. Hence, the present application is filed.
Reply to the application has been filed by defendant. It is
submitted that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of
possession, recovery of money and permanent injunction on the said
-- 2 of 5 --
……….3/5…...
plaint. It is further submitted that on 20.02.2025, Counsel for the
defendant no.2 appeared through VC and submitted that the legible
copies of the documents to be supplied by the plaintiff to prepare Written
Statement on behalf of defendant no.2, the counsel for the plaintiff
supplied the legible copies to the counsel for the defendant no.2. It is
further submitted that on 03.04.2025, Proxy Counsel for the defendant
no.2 has filed fresh vakalatnama on behalf of main counsel and sought
time to file the written statement and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
03.04.2025 granted the one week time to file the written statement. It is
further submitted that from 10/04/2025 to 14/04/2025, due to holiday the
written statement on behalf of defendant no.2 was filed through mail
before this Hon’ble Court and the advance copy of the written statement
was also supplied to the counsel for the plaintiff on her Mobile no.
9599204385 and it was duly acknowledged. It is also submitted that the
Defendant no.2 filed a condonation of delay application for one day and
reply to the said application was also filed by the plaintiff but the counsel
for the plaintiff without any merits and reasons filed the present review
application Under Order 47 Rule 1 R/W section 151 of CPC which has
no base and authentication. It is also submitted that the ground taken by
the Counsel for the plaintiff that the counsel who have replied the legal
notice dated 29/10/2024 was aware of the present case but it is pertinent
to mention here that the counsel who replied to the legal notice is not to
make that he will be the counsel in the present suit which was filed
subsequently. It is further submitted that order dated 03/04/2025 is a
self-explained order which cannot be reviewed. It is further submitted
-- 3 of 5 --
………..4/5…...
that the counsel for the defendant no.2 who has filed the vakalatnama on
03/04/2025 and sought the time to file the written statement did not make
wrong submission before this Hon’ble Court and there was no intention
to misuse the legal process whereas plaintiff for her own act trying to
misuse the legal process and the delivery of justice. Defendant further
submits that the present application be dismissed.
Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
Perusal of record shows that vide order dated 03.04.2025, ld.
Counsel for defendant seeks some more time to file WS as she has been
recently engaged in the matter. In the interest of justice, one week time
was given to defendant to file written statement. The contention of
plaintiff is that Ld. Counsel for defendant on 03.04.2025 has made wrong
submissions and misuse the process of law. As regards to this plea, it is
clear from the record that the counsel of defendant filed his V/nama on
03.04.2025, however, it is true that he appeared before this court on
behalf of defendant no.2, 4 and 5 on 20.02.2025 and requested for legible
copies and he was the only advocate who was supplied with legible
document by the plaintiff. The only grivance of plaintiff in the present
application is that the counsel for defendant who appeared before this
court on 03.04.2025 made wrong submissions that she has been recently
engaged in the present matter. This court recorded the submissions as it
was made by the ld. Counsel for defendant. There is no error apparent on
the face of record in granting one week time to defendant to file written
statement. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has not given
-- 4 of 5 --
……...5/5……..
any reasonable explanation in the present review application to recall the
order dated 03.04.2025. Hence, this court does not find any merit in the
submissions of review application and same is dismissed.
Put up for competition of pleading, admission & denial of
documents and framing of issues on 17.07.2025.
(Pooja Jain)
District Judge-03/NB
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
29.05.2025
-- 5 of 5 --