Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 34 CS SCJ 252/24
Dinesh Kumar Dabas Vs. Suresh Dabas
01.09.2026
Present: Sh. J. V. Rana, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Jatin Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for defendant along with defendant.
Time sought by the plaintiff to file reply to the application filed on LDOH.
Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that the plaintiff has filed replication
in the matter after lapse of 06 months, hence, the same is time barred. He argues that the
time period for filing of replication is 45 days and prays that the replication not be taken
on record.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the order on application
u/o XXXIX rule 1 & 2 CPC was challenged by the defendant and those proceedings
were pending, hence, there was a delay in filing of replication. He further argues that no
time period has been prescribed in CPC for filing of replication and the said period of 45
days is applicable to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (original side).
Heard. Perused.
The High Court rules are applicable to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
(original side) and no specific time period has been prescribed for filing of replication in
CPC. However, delay has been caused in filing of replication, accordingly, the
replication of the plaintiff is taken on record subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to
the defendant.
Be put up for arguments on the application u/o 11 CPC filed by the
defendant on 27.10.2026.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge/N-W District
01.09.2026
-- 1 of 1 --