Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 4 CS SCJ 1016/25 PUNEET TRIPATHI Vs. SHILPI MITTAL
06.05.2026
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
Sh. Sonu Ld. Proxy Counsel for defendant no.1
and 2.
Ms. Vasu Singh Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.3/ MCD.
An application seeking condonation of delay in
filing WS on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 is pending disposal.
It is stated in the application that a delay of 78
days has occurred as the defendant no.1 and 2 attempted to settle
the dispute outside the court on receipt of summons and when
such efforts failed, the defendant no.1 and 2 engaged the court
and WS has been filed. It is prayed that the delay in filing the
WS may be condoned.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has opposed the
application stating that there is no cogent reason stated in the
application and the assertion of settlement efforts is a false
statement.
Heard.
It is settled proposition of law that procedures are
handmaid of justice and the procedures should not impede the
path of it. Though, there is a delay in filing the WS, in the
considered opinion of this court, the same is required to be
condoned for adjudicating the dispute on merits.
However, it is also essential that plaintiff be
compensated for the delay caused. Thus, the application U/o 8
rule 1 CPC is allowed subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to
the plaintiff.
Replication to the WS of defendant no.3 has been
filed on behalf of plaintiff. Taken on record.
-- 1 of 2 --
An application U/s 151 CPC has been made on
behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 seeking directions against
defendant no.3 to allow construction as existed prior to the
demolition action. On inquiry, it is stated that the unauthorised
construction as booked by MCD has been partially demolished.
It is stated by defendant no.2 that she is ready to demolish the
remaining booked portion. It is forth coming from record that
the property of defendant no.1 and 2 was booked for
unauthorised construction in the form of projection at first floor
and entire second floor. As per WS of defendant no.3 the
projection on first floor has been demolished and seal has been
affixed at the entrance of second floor.
In such circumstances, the defendant no.2 and 3
can raise construction, after removal of the unauthorised
construction and upon obtaining permission from MCD and as
such, the present application U/s 151 CPC is not the correct
course for the same. The relief as prayed, is premature
inasmuch as the unauthorised construction is yet to be removed
and no permission has been sought from MCD. The application
is accordingly dismissed.
Be put up for completion of pleadings/further
proceedings on 07.07.2026.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North, Rohini Courts,Delhi/06.05.2026
-- 2 of 2 --