Allowed

Bharti Verma v. Aditya Dudeja

Delhi HC23 Jan 2024CM(M)/138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's petition challenging the closure of her right to file a written statement. The court condoned a 73-day delay, directed payment of costs, and permitted the statement to be filed, emphasizing no further delays in the divorce proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The written statement allowed to be placed on record subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000 to the respondent. Impugned order quashed.

Bharti Verma Vs Aditya Dudeja — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~62

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 138/2024 BHARTI VERMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Arunesh Sharma, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

ADITYA DUDEJA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 23.01.2024

¶10

CM APPL. 4296/2024 (exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

CM(M) 138/2024, CM APPL. 4297/2024--stay

¶14

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed impugning the order dated 08.08.2023 in HMA No. 122/2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby the right to file written statement of the respondent was closed. The petitioner herein is the respondent before the learned Trial Court.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a delay of 73 days in filing the written statement, hence, the learned Trial Court did not permit the written statement of the petitioner herein to form part of the record. It is submitted that the applications moved by the petitioner on 09.08.2023 seeking condonation of delay of 73 days in filing the written statement under Order XXXVIII Rule 1 CPC and recalling the

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/06/2024 at 15:05:37

¶17

order dated 08.08.2023 under Section 151 CPC were dismissed vide order dated 03.11.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that if the petitioner is not allowed to place his written statement on record, it will adversely affect petitioner‘s defence and would be against interest of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner presses upon recalling the order dated 08.08.2023.

¶18

Issue notice.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that he has no objection if the petition is allowed subject to cost, however, the petitioner should ensure that no delay is caused by taking unnecessary adjournments in the divorce proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court.

¶20

In view of the above submissions, as well as in the interest of justice, the written statement of the petitioner is allowed to be taken on record subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondent herein tomorrow. It is stated that the matter is listed tomorrow before the learned Trial Court. It is further directed that the petitioner herein shall not delay the proceedings of the case by taking unnecessary adjournments before the learned Trial Court.

¶21

Accordingly, the present petition along with pending application is disposed of.

¶22

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

¶23

JANUARY 23, 2024 SU

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/06/2024 at 15:05:37

Bharti Verma v. Aditya Dudeja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharti Verma v. Aditya Dudeja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Satish Shah @ Satish Kumar Vs Jatinder Singh Pannu & Anr.

Akhil Singhal Vs Harsha Singhal

Bhagmal Singh Vs Amar Singh & Anr.

Moonmoon Dhar & Ors. Vs Karuna Tandon & Anr.

Prabhakar Bhat Vs Annu Lamba

Vishwanathan G & Anr. Vs PNB Housing Finance Limited through Manager

Devender Verma Vs State Bank of India

Sanjay Goel Vs Bkr Capital Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Kumar Satish Shah @ Satish Kumar Vs Jatinder Singh Pannu & Anr.

Akhil Singhal Vs Harsha Singhal

Sushma Mittal Vs Punjab National Bank

Ht Happy Tummy Private Limited Vs Naresh Kumar Chadha and Anr.

Resident Welfare Association Vs Jatender Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.

Prabhakar Bhat Vs Annu Lamba