Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS 19/2025
Ravi Shankar Dabas Vs. Grandlay Electricals
29.10.2025 At 4.00 PM
Present: None
By way of this order I shall dispose of the
application moved on behalf of defendant u/O 8 Rule 1 r/w
section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the
written statement on behalf of defendant and the application u/O
8 Rule10 CPC moved on behalf of plaintiff.
Arguments on the application already heard. It is
submitted by ld. Counsel for plaintiff that present suit is
instituted by plaintiffs seeking possession as well as other relief
in respect of immovable property bearing No.B-1/17, Vasant
Vihar, 1st Floor. It is further submitted that defendants in the
present case were served on 23.01.2025 and thereafter the matter
was listed for hearing on the application u/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC
on 17.02.2025. It is further stated that on 17.02.2025 ld. counsel
for defendants appeared before the court whereupon defendants
were directed to file written statement within prescribed time. It
is further submitted that despite expiry of 90 days from the date
of service, no written statement was filed by defendants and thus
in the interest of justice, judgment may be passed against the
defendants in terms of order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff has relied upon judgment
Shri Kewal Krishan Vs.Shri
Gulshan Kumar in CM(M) 1806/2025, CM APPL.58071/2025 &
58070/2025 decided on 15.09.2025
Per contra, it is submitted by ld. Counsel for
defendant that in the last week of January defendant No.2
-- 1 of 3 --
suffered injury in his right hand and around the same time his
wife began undergoing treatment for cancer. It is further
submitted that on 17.02.2027, parties were referred to mediation
center of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and since the mediation
proceedings were going on and also in view of ill health of
defendant No.2 wife and also as the injury suffered by defendant
No.2, defendant could not file their written statement within the
time frame of 30 days. Ld. Counsel for defendant relied upon
Bharat Singh Vs. Charan Singh others decided by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi on 03.02.2025 wherein it was held that time spent
in mediation ought to be excluded from calculating the period of
limitation for filing of written statement. It is further argued that
delay in filing the written statement by defendant was neither
deliberate nor intentional and it was only due to medical reasons
of defendants and the pendency of mediation proceedings.
Submissions made on behalf of defendants are
highly opposed by plaintiff. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for
plaintiff that mediation proceedings before Hon’ble High Court
was going on with respect to other property and no medical
document of the defendants are filed in support of contention and
hence the present application of defendant should not be allowed.
Submissions made on behalf of both the parties
taken into consideration. Record perused.
In compliance of directions of the court, one e-mail
is received from ld. Counsel of the defendants as he was directed
in the morning to supply relevant medical documents of the
defendants. The medical documents sent vide email are perused.
Considering the submission made on behalf of defendants that
written statement could not be filed within the given time frame
-- 2 of 3 --
due to medical reasons of the defendants,lenient view is taken by
the court and present application of defendants is allowed.
Written statement filed on behalf of defendant is taken on record.
In view of above, application of plaintiff u/O 8 Rule 10 is
disposed of as not allowed. Replication if any be filed by the
plaintiffs on or before the next date of hearing. Put up for
framing of issues on 12.11.2025.
(Meenu Kaushik)
District Judge-03
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
29.10.2025
-- 3 of 3 --