Single judge order disposing of three matters. Condoned 10-day delay in filing chamber appeal. Allowed plea regarding replication/rejoinder timing. Transferred suit 134/2015 to District Judge court under new jurisdictional notification.
Delay condoned; replication extended; suit transferred to District Judge Shadara.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~40.
BRAJESH KUMAR ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate.
versus
CHETNA & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for defendants No.2 & 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
%
O R D E R 08.03.2016
I.A. No. 13/2016
By this application, the plaintiff seeks condonation of 10 days delay in filing the chamber appeal.
The delay of 10 days is not substantial and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
O.A. No. 1/2016
The plaintiff is aggrieved by the right of the plaintiff to file the replication/ rejoinder being closed by the learned Joint Registrar vide order dated 20.11.2015.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the replication/ rejoinder are ready and were filed in the Registry along with the present appeal.
However, the same would do appear to come on record as the Court has not yet granted leave to the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the defendants fairly does not oppose the present chamber appeal.
Accordingly, the same is allowed, subject to payment of costs to the defendants. The plaintiff shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the defendants within a week. The time for filing the replication/ rejoinder is extended by two days. The plaintiff should ensure to bring the same on record within the next two days.
CS(OS) 134/2015 and I.A. Nos. 979/2015 & 25826/2015
In view of the notification No.2718/DHC/Orgl. dated 25.11.2015, issued under Section 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 23 of 2015), at the request of the counsels for the parties, the present suit is transferred to the Court of the District Judge (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for further proceedings before the competent court on 04.05.2016.
It is made clear that as both sides are duly represented today, no fresh notice for appearance shall be issued and the parties shall ensure their presence before the concerned Court on the aforesaid date.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
MARCH 08, 2016 B.S. Rohella
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the chamber appeal should be condoned.
Whether the plaintiff's right to file a replication/rejoinder should be allowed despite being closed by order.
Whether the suit under 134/2015 should be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Shahdara.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BRAJESH KUMAR
CHETNA & ORS
VIPIN SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
A civil suit filed on the original side of a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
