Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: -1-
CS No. 19/25
RAVI SHANKAR DABAS Vs. GRANDLAY ELECTRICALS
INDIAN
05.01.2026
Present: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs along
with plaintiff no. 2 in person.
Mr. Rajeev Bajaj and Mr. Arsh Rampal, Ld.
Counsels for defendants.
Reply to application u/O 12 Rule 6 CPC along with
application for condonation of delay is filed on behalf of
defendant.
Arguments on application for condonation of delay
in filing reply on behalf of defendants to the application u/O 12
Rule 6 heard.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendants that
the application u/O 12 Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of CPC was
moved by the plaintiff on 10.11.2025 which was listed before this
court for the first time on 12.11.2025. It is further submitted that
defendants were granted time to file the reply till 19.12.2025 i.e.
the next date fixed before the court. It is further submitted that
reply could not be filed on behalf of the defendants due to ill
health of the counsel for the defendants. During the course of
arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendants has shown some
photographs in his mobile showing swelling in his ankle. It is
further submitted that the delay in filing the reply was not
intentional and it was only due to unavoidable circumstances.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs opposed the application
for condonation of delay moved on behalf of defendants.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Submissions heard. Record perused.
I have considered the application seeking
condonation of delay. For the reasons assigned therein, for proper
adjudication of the present dispute and to give defendant a
reasonable opportunity to file the reply to the application u/O 12
Rule 6 CPC, the delay stands condoned.
Application is allowed.
Arguments on application u/O 12 Rule 6 CPC heard.
Put up for orders on application u/O 12 Rule 6 CPC
on 19.01.2026 at 4 pm.
(Meenu Kaushik)
District Judge-03
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
05.01.2026
-- 2 of 2 --