Allowed

Neha Aggarwal v. Vishal Aggarwal & Ors.

Delhi HC29 Jan 2024CM(M)/2071/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside a trial court order closing the petitioner's right to file a written statement in a civil suit. The High Court permitted the filing of the written statement subject to a cost, finding that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file written statement within three days before Trial Court subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable within a week.

Neha Aggarwal Vs Vishal Aggarwal & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 2071/2023, CM APPL. 64983/2023--stay

¶4

NEHA AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Karan Luthra and Mr. Naman Gowda, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

VISHAL AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Amit P. Deshpande, Adv. for R1.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 29.01.2024.

¶12

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for challenging the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Shahdara, Kardardooma Courts, Delhi, in CS No.142/2023 titled as “ Vishal Aggarwal vs. Rajesh Aggarwal & Ors. ”, whereby the learned Trial Court has closed the right of the petitioner to file a written statement. The petitioner herein is the defendant no.1 before the learned Trial Court.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Predecessor Bench on 15.12.2023. He has brought the Demand Draft of Rs. 5,000/- and has also placed a copy of the proposed written statements on record on 16.12.2023. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that he is unwilling to accept the said Demand Draft but the petition itself is not maintainable.

¶14

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 02/07/2025 at 03:28:44

¶15

The learned counsel for petitioner states that vide impugned order dated 10.08.2023 the learned Trial Court in the Civil Suit bearing CS No. 142/2023 erroneously closed the right of the petitioner herein to file written statement.

¶16

It is submitted that the petitioner herein was served with the summons of the suit on 13.03.2023 and was granted 30 days time by the learned Trial Court to file written statement. However, due to financial constrains he could not pay the fee of his advocate therefore, he was unable to file written statement within 30 days and moreover, the extended period of 120 days had expired on 11.07.2023.

¶17

In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.08.2023 closed petitioner’s right to file written statement. 6. It is further submitted that CS no. 43/2023 is the second suit filed by respondent no.1 herein against the petitioner, wherein, he has already filed the written statement. Moreover, the parties and the subject matter of the abovementioned suit are same to that of CS no. 142/2023 from which the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 has arisen.

¶18

The present petition has been strongly opposed on behalf of the respondent submitting that, in the other civil suit i.e. CS NO. 43/2023, filed by respondent no. 2 which is already pending with respect to the same subject matter, the respondent herein is not a party, but his father is. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court and moreover, the appropriate remedy with the petitioner herein was to approach the learned Trial Court itself against the impugned order but, instead, he approached this Court through a petition under Article 227 of the

¶19

¶20

Constitution of India.

¶21

On enquiring from both the parties about the stage at which the present suit is, it is submitted that, the matter is not progressing before the learned Trial Court as, the report of the Medical Board constituted at IBHAS, New Delhi with respect to respondent no.3 is being awaited and arguments on the application moved by petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with respect to respondent no.3 are to be addressed. Moreover, none of the other defendants have filed the written statements.

¶22

In view of the above submissions and circumstance no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent no.1, if the petitioner is permitted to file his written statement. The proposed copy of the written statement appears to have been inadvertently filed by the petitioner before this Court. 11. The petition is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid within a week to respondent no.1. 12. Written statement to be filed within three days before the learned Trial Court with advance copy to other side. 13. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that today a Demand Draft of Rs. 5,000/- has been handed over to the learned counsel for respondent no.1 and the remaining cost of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid within a week. 14. Accordingly, the present petition along with the pending applications stands disposed of.

¶23

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

¶24

JANUARY 29, 2024 /SDS

¶25

Neha Aggarwal v. Vishal Aggarwal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neha Aggarwal v. Vishal Aggarwal & Ors.

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

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs Sri Ram & Ors.

Swami Chakrapani, National President Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha Vs Election Commission of India and Ors.

M M L Kapur Vs Anil Wadhwa and Anr.

Gopal Krishan (Deceased) through Lrs Vs Rajinder Pal (Deceased) through Lrs & Anr.

Subhra Kabasi Vs Ranjeet

Madhu Vyas Vs Sanjay Singhania (Since Deceased) through His Lrs

Rajit Kumar Vs Mridula Murgai & Ors.

Vijay Singh Vs Smt. Jyoti Yadav

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs Sri Ram & Ors.

Swami Chakrapani, National President Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha Vs Election Commission of India and Ors.

M M L Kapur Vs Anil Wadhwa and Anr.

Hemlata Vs Savita & Anr.

N S Acroplast Vs Micro Solutions

Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs Vatsal Mittal