Dismissed

Ramin Kumar Mittal v. Brij Dwivedi

Delhi HC19 Jul 2024CM(M)/2945/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, dismissed a petition challenging an impugned order condoning a 19-day delay in filing leave to defend. The court upheld the Trial Court's discretion, emphasizing that decisions on merits should prevail over technicalities and that the absence of malice warrants liberal judicial approach.

What did the court decide?

Petition for supervisory intervention challenging the condonation of delay is dismissed.

Ramin Kumar Mittal Vs Brij Dwivedi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 19^th July, 2024

¶4

- CM(M) 2945/2024 & CM APPL. 40103/2024

¶5

RAMIN KUMAR MITTAL .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Abhimanyu with Mr. Pankaj Arora, Mr. Paras Maheshwari, Mr. Kunal Dhawan, Mr. Rahul Manik, Mr. Parkash Chand, Mr. Ankit Panwar, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

BRIJ DWIVEDI .....Respondent Through: None.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶11

Petitioner, who is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, had filed a suit which was summary in nature.

¶12

The defendant (respondent herein) put in appearance and when the summons for judgment were taken out, the defendant submitted an application seeking leave to defend, albeit , with a delay of 19 days.

¶13

The learned Trial Court considered the application moved by the defendant whereby he had sought condonation of delay in filing leave to defend.

¶14

Such delay of 19 days has been condoned by the learned Trial Court.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

CM(M) 2945/2024

¶17

¶18

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.07.2024 17:00:16

¶19

Such order has been impugned by the petitioner/plaintiff.

¶20

According to the petitioner, the condonation had been sought while citing medical exigency and along with the application, the defendant had submitted two medical documents dated 18.08.2023 and 10.09.2023. Medical prescription dated 18.08.2023 indicates that defendant was suffering from loose motion etc. As per the medical certificate dated on 10.09.2023, it was certified that Mr. Brij Dwivedi (defendant/respondent) was suffering from acute gastroenteritis and swollen toe nail and was, accordingly, advised rest for two weeks.

¶21

It is contended that these certificates seem to have been procured and moreover the kind of ailment mentioned therein is general in nature which could have been cured by simple medication and did not incapacitate the defendant to not submit the application seeking leave within time. Therefore, relying on these medical prescription, the learned Trial Court should not have condoned the delay.

¶22

This Court is very much conscious of the fact that the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the Court is required to exercise its supervisory powers. The duty of the supervisory Court is to interdict if it was found that findings were perverse i.e. (i) Erroneous on account of nonconsideration of material evidence, or (ii) Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) Based on inferences that are impermissible in law. Reference be made to Puri Investments Versus

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

CM(M) 2945/2024

¶25

¶26

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.07.2024 17:00:16

¶27

Young Friends and Co. and Others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283.

¶28

In the present case, while exercising its discretionary powers as provided under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) CPC, the learned Trial Court has chosen to exercise its discretion in favour of the defendant and, thereby, the delay has been condoned.

¶29

Needless to emphasize, the endeavour of the Court should be to decide the lis on merits instead of on technicalities and such provision should be used in liberal manner, particularly, when it is found that the conduct of the applicant does not suggest any malice or deliberate inaction.

¶30

Moreover, when the learned Trial Court has chosen to condone the delay, the supervisory Court should not disturb the finding merely on the premise that discretion should not have been exercised in favour of defendant.

¶31

Viewed thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in question.

¶32

13. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶33

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶34

JULY 19, 2024 st

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

CM(M) 2945/2024

¶37

¶38

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.07.2024 17:00:16

Ramin Kumar Mittal v. Brij Dwivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramin Kumar Mittal v. Brij Dwivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jubeda Begum Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Vijay Vardhan Daga Vs M/S Lord Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Vanita Bathla Vs Shashi Bajaj & Anr.

Reeta Lalwani Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

M/S. Goyal and Goel Stainless Steels and Anr. Vs M/S. Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Smt. Sudesh Anil Vs Shri Anil Arora & Ors.

Nisha Sharma Vs Siddharth Sharma

Mr Vineet Bhutani Vs Mrs Nadiya Mehra

Jubeda Begum Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Vijay Vardhan Daga Vs M/S Lord Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Vanita Bathla Vs Shashi Bajaj & Anr.

Hari Singh Yadav and Anr. Vs Ram Kumar Gupta Deceased through Lr.

Sonia Venugopal & Anr. Vs Taani Kapoor

M/S Red Apple Vs Dev Bhoomi Cold Chain Private Limited