Full Order Text
Order 2 · 17 Dec 2024 · CNR DLND010070002024
Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Pdf Text: CS No.4166/24 Juhi Goel and Anr. Vs. Seema Goel 17.12.2024 Present : Mr. Gaurav Arora, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs alongwith plaintiffs and Ms. Renu Gandhi @ Sonali in person. Ms. Shivali, Ld. Counsel for the defendant through VC. Evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Renu Gandhi is filed. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that he is carrying copy of the affidavit for it to be supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the defendant, however, Ld. Counsel for the defendant is not present in the Court physically and therefore, copy cannot be supplied. An application for recalling order dated 27.07.2023 filed by the defendant is pending for consideration. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has not received copy of the application. Ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that she had supplied the copy. Despite asking by the Court, Ld. Counsel for the defendant is unable to furnish proof of service. When the defendant filed the above application and it came up for consideration before the Court on 29.10.2024, the Court directed that process fee be filed so that notice of the application can be sent to the plaintiffs. However, this direction of the court has not been complied with by the defendant. -- 1 of 3 -- -2- As a consequence, since the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has not received copy of the application, matter will have to be adjourned. The witness of the plaintiffs is also present before the Court for recording of her evidence. She will have to be discharged unexamined today. For today’s adjournment, a cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed upon the defendant to be paid to the plaintiffs. At this stage, Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has appeared through VC. He submits that a new practice has been developed by this Court to impose costs for no fault of the parties. This Court is of the opinion that whenever case is adjourned due to a party, that party should compensate the opposite party in monetary terms for causing the adjournment. Ld. Counsel for the defendant is requested to reserve his submissions to be made by him before the Appellate Court and not criticize the order of this Court before this Court itself. However, Ld. Counsel for the defendant continues to state that a new practice has been made by this Court to impose costs arbitrarily. Let copy of the application of the defendant be supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs within two weeks from today and against acknowledgment. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that he does not have the address or any other contact details of the plaintiffs’ Counsel. -- 2 of 3 -- -3- The defendant and her Counsel are always at liberty to inspect the Court file to obtain the contact details of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs, in case the contact details have not been mentioned in the copy of the pleadings of the plaintiffs which were supplied to the defendant. At this stage, at the request of Ld. Counsel for the defendant, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has disclosed that his mobile number is ‘8800272829’. Let copy of the reply to the application, if any, be supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the defendant atleast 15 days prior to the next date of hearing. To come up for payment of cost and for arguments on the above application on 25.04.2025. (Shirish Aggarwal) District Judge-03 Patiala House Courts, New Delhi 17.12.2024 -- 3 of 3 --
