The petitioners challenged an order by the Additional District Judge striking off their defence for failure to file a written statement. The High Court found no jurisdictional error and dismissed the petition, disposing of pending applications.
The petition was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.
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.
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANITA SADHWANI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Shakul R. Ghatole, Mr Sushant Mahajan, Advocates.
versus
BHAGWAN DAS DEEP CHAND SIDHWANI & ORS
..... Respondents
Through
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 12.03.2019
CM No.11084/2019
W.P.(C) 2377/2019 & CM No.11083/2019
petitioners that they had instructed their advocate to file the written statement, but he had not entered appearance.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
MARCH 12, 2019 MK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Additional District Judge's order striking off the petitioners' defence for failure to file a written statement.
Whether there is an error of jurisdiction regarding the refusal to allow the filing of the written statement.
Whether the petitioners' claim of non-action by their advocate entitles them to relief.
Anita Sadhwani
Bhagwan Das Deep Chand Sidhwani
Vibhu Bakhu
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
