Neelam Jain v. Vandana Sachdeva
Case brief
What is this about?
The Delhi High Court dismissed the landlord's challenge to an order allowing a tenant to reopen her evidence in an eviction proceeding. The Court directed that the evidence be recorded daily without adjournments to ensure expedited disposal of the matter pending appeal.
What did the court decide?
The application by the landlord was dismissed; the tenant was directed to record evidence daily from March 24, 2020, without adjournments.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
$~41
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CM(M) 198/2020
NEELAM JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankul Jain and Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocates. (M:9968228310)
versus
VANDANA SACHDEVA ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 18.02.2020 CM APPL. 6577/2020 (exemption)
- Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
CM(M) 198/2020 & CM APPL. 6576/2020 (stay)
- There is some discrepancy in the scanned order as the complete copy of the impugned order is not there in the scanned record. Copy of the order has been shown to the Court by the Ld. Counsel.
- The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28th January, 2020, by which the evidence of the Respondent/Respondent No.1 (hereinafter, “Respondent No.1”) has been reopened by the ld. RC, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order allowing the reopening of a tenant's evidence in an eviction petition.
Whether any conditions should be imposed on the resumption of the reopened evidence to prevent further delay in the disposal of the trial.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Neelam Jain
- respondent
Vandana Sachdeva
Coram
Prathiba M. Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court