Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 212/25
RAJAT SADDI Vs. RACCHNA SADDI
23.08.2025
Lawyers are abstaining from work today.
Present: AR / Attorney Holder of the plaintiff in person.
Ms. Tanishka and Mr. Sujit Kumar, Ld. Counsels for
the defendant no. 1 through VC.
WS already filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1.
Taken on record. Copy already supplied.
The plaintiff states that the defendant no. 1 was served
on 26.04.2025 as per the speed post tracking report. Despite the
same, since the WS has come to be filed only on 25.07.2025 and that
also without any explanation for the delay, the Attorney Holder of
the plaintiff contends that the defendant no. 1 has forfeited her right
to file WS and the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment under O 8 R 10
CPC.
As per the original postal receipts and tracking reports
filed by the plaintiff alongwith an affidavit of service, it is seen that
defendant no. 1 / Rachana Saddi was sent summons vide speed post
no. ED932199239IN on 25.04.2025. The tracking reports filed
however relate to summons sent to defendant no. 2 / MCD and
defendant no. 3 / SHO concerned only. The third tracking report qua
defendant no. 1 is seen not to be on record / filed by the plaintiff.
Considering the same, the claim of service upon defendant no. 1
through speed post on 26.04.2025 is not borne out from the record.
Be that as it may, summons issued to the defendant no.
1 through normal mode are seen to have been served on
06.05.2025, though it is informed by Ld. Counsel for the defendant
no. 1 that they were actually received in some time June 2025,
-1/3-
-- 1 of 3 --
because of which, the WS filed is within the period of limitation.
Irrespective, the WS came to be filed by defendant no. 1 on
25.07.2025 subsequent thereto. Ld. Counsel for the defendant orally
states that taken from that period as well, the delay if at all is not
excessive and may be condoned.
As per O 8 R 1 CPC, the defendant is required to file
WS within 30 days from the date of service of summons, and in any
case not later than 120 days from the date of service of summons as
provided in the proviso thereof. The WS is seen to have been filed
within such outer limit, i.e. approximately 2.5 months from the date
of service, even if discounting out the claim of the defendant no. 1
that service was effected in June 2025. Further, for about more than
half a month in June 2025, the Courts were closed as well for
vacation and such period is liable to be excluded for calculating the
time for filing of WS. Taking that into account and considering the
fact that the delay itself is not entirely excessive, this Court is
inclined to condone the same as parties must be allowed opportunity
to litigate their case on merits and some delay, which is not
unreasonable, in filing of pleadings must be excused.
In view of the above therefore, no merit remains in the
application filed by the plaintiff under O 8 R 10 CPC as well and it
is accordingly Dismissed.
Defendant no. 2 / MCD has not yet filed WS. None is
present on behalf of MCD either. Accordingly, final opportunity
granted for filing of WS alongwith with an application seeking
condonation of delay. A copy be supplied to the plaintiff at least a
week prior to NDOH.
The AR / Attorney Holder of the plaintiff informs the
Court that MCD has already booked the unauthorized construction
-2/3-
-- 2 of 3 --
as stated in the status report filed.
It is seen that in the applications under O 39 R 1 and 2
CPC, plaintiff has sought restraining the defendant no. 1 from
creating third party interest in the suit property as well as from
erecting illegal, unauthorized and unlawful superstructure upon the
rooftop of the suit property and making any unauthorized and illegal
construction thereof.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 states that there is
no intention on part of the defendant no. 1 to create third party
interest in the suit property.
In view of the above, defendant no. 1 is hereby
restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property
during the pendency of the Court proceedings.
As to the latter aspect of restraining the defendant no. 1
from erecting illegal, unauthorized and unlawful superstructure upon
the rooftop of the suit property and making any unauthorized and
illegal construction thereof, it is seen that the same has been sought
by way of one of the final reliefs as well. If that be so, directions in
that regard cannot be passed at this stage.
Applications under O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC stand disposed
off in the above-mentioned terms.
Let replication, if any, be filed with an advance copy to
the defendants at least a week prior to NDOH.
Put up for completion of pleadings / framing of issues
on 19.11.2025.
(Gaurav Sharma)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
North West/Rohini Courts/Delhi
23.08.2025
-3/3-
-- 3 of 3 --