Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS DJ No. 745/25
Aarushi Jain & Ors. Vs Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Ors.
01.12.2025
Present : Sh. Saurabh Kumar Kaushik and Sh. Hardik Malik, Ld. Counsel
for plaintiffs.
Sh. Navlendu Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2,
through VC.
Sh. Sumish Kumar, Associate Counsel for the main counsel Sh.
Navlendu Kumar.
Submitting unability of defendants to appear in person as mother
of defendant no. 2 is hospitalized, memo of appearance on behalf of
defendants is filed and time is sought to file vakalatnama.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for defendants submit that only hard
copy, if available and spare, be handed over to his associate. The same is
refused as available.
Further, counsel for plaintiff has placed on record the service
through speed post. This affirms the service to the defendants. Accordingly,
hard copy cannot be deemed as non supplied at all.
An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is already
attached with the plaint and notices of the same were also issued.
Ld. Counsel for defendants submit that he is only asked to appear
by the defendants today in the morning and he is not at all aware about the
case filed against the defendants. However, he submits his knowledge that
plaintiff no. 2 is the son of both the defendants and he himself had drafted the
notices where both the defendants had disowned their only son i.e. plaintiff no.
2. Initially, Ld. Counsel also submits that plaintiff no. 1 and 2 had been in
contd....
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
live-in relationship and that plaintiff no. 1 and 2 might have got married. But
in the later part of the submissions, he submits that only a roka ceremony
between plaintiff no. 1 and 2 has taken place. This court directed that parties
including both the defendants should appear in person.
At this, at the onset, Ld. Counsel questions for the requirement of
the physical appearance of the defendants and he also states that both the
defendants are senior citizens. From the change in pitch and response, it is
gained that though inability in making submissions in respect of application
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is being stated, selective submissions are
advanced and simultaneously, appearance of defendants is also being
attempted to be avoided.
Ld. Counsel is also asked about the comfortable date amongst 2nd
December or 3rd December for the appearance of defendants but Ld. Counsel
does not submit even the same but keeps questioning their personal
appearance. From this very conduct of Ld. Counsel, this court is constrained
to take note that both the defendants are deliberately not appearing before the
court and in fact, process is attempted to be abused. But granting an
opportunity to defendants to appear in person to present their case fairly, now
the case is being fixed for 03.12.2025 clarifying that on ommission,
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC shall be disposed of.
(Aanchal)
District Judge-03, Rohini Courts
North District, Delhi
01.12.2025 (jy)
-- 2 of 2 --