Prerna Jain v. Rama Pandey
Case brief
What is this about?
Allowed the petitioner's petition to set aside an order dismissing her right to file a written statement in damages suit due to her counsel's illness and dengue. Wrote statement taken on record; costs awarded.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order dated 26.10.2015 was set aside. The written statement has been taken on record. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to the respondent.
What the court decided
$~23
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CM(M) 184/2016 & C.M. Nos.6724-25/2016 PRERNA JAIN
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate and Ms. Aastha Lumba, Advocates
- versus
RAMA PANDEY ..... Respondent Through None
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
- O R D E R
- % 04.03.2016
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 26.10.2015 vide which the right to file written statement of the petitioner is dismissed.
Record shows that this is a suit for damages which has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Summons were served upon the defendant for 28.05.2015. Written statement was to be filed by 15.07.2015 (after expiry of 30 days). On 04.09.2015 counsel for the defendant had appeared before the Trial Court and on that date it had been recorded that defendant was seeking time to place on record written statement along with appropriate application seeking condonation of delay. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that written statement was ready on that date but Court had advised him to file the same along with the application seeking condonation
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement should be allowed in light of the petitioner's counsel's illness?
Whether the impugned order dismissing the right to file a written statement should be set aside?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Prerna Jain
- respondent
Rama Pandey
Coram
Indermeet Kaur
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court