Dismissed

Murtaza Gheewala v. M/S Deewan Chand Om Prakash

Delhi HC14 Feb 2024FAO (COMM)/31/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this_clicked在手机_od complaint matter, the appellant sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the dismissal of their review petition. The court noted that the right to file a written statement had effectively closed after 120 days. It dismissed the appeal due to the delay in filing the current appeal and the impossibility of granting leeway. The case was disposed of summarily.

What the court decided

AI extract

Murtaza Gheewala Vs M/S Deewan Chand Om Prakash — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Decision delivered on: 14.02.2024

¶4

+ FAO (COMM) 31/2024 & CM Nos.8863-64/2024

¶5

MURTAZA GHEEWALA ..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Verma, Adv.

¶6

versus M/S DEEWAN CHAND OM PRAKASH ..... Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶8

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

¶9

CM No.8863/2024

¶10

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

FAO (COMM) 31/2024 & CM No.8864/2024 [Application filed on behalf

¶12

of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the

¶13

appeal]

¶14

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2023 whereby the appellant’s/defendant’s review petition was dismissed.

¶15

The appellant/defendant had sought review of the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-04, Central Delhi.

¶16

A perusal of the order dated 14.03.2023 would show that the

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date: 19.0 2.2024 18:27:27

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

FAO (COMM) 31/2024

¶21

appellant/defendant had put in an appearance via counsel on 27.09.2022 and up till that date, the written statement had not been filed.

¶22

Having regard to the fact that more than 120 days had passed, the learned District Judge, in effect, closed the right of the appellant/defendant to file the written statement. It is this order qua which the review petition was filed, which was dismissed via the impugned judgment and order.

¶23

The fact that 120 days had passed since service was effected on the appellant/defendant is not disputed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant says that there were various reasons as to why the written statement could not be filed within 120 days, including the fact that the appellant/defendant resides in Mumbai.

¶25

We may note that even this appeal is filed after a delay of 31 days.

¶26

Since presently no leeway is available with the court, the impugned judgment and order cannot be interdicted.

¶27

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶28

Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.

¶29

Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

¶30

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶31

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶32

FEBRUARY 14, 2024 aj

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Signed By:PREM MOHANCHOUDHARY FAO (COMM) 31/2024 Signing Date: 19.0 2.2024 18:27:27

¶35

Page 2 of 2

Murtaza Gheewala v. M/S Deewan Chand Om Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Murtaza Gheewala v. M/S Deewan Chand Om Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Anheusher Busch Inbev India Ltd. & Anr.

Mehul Choksi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Surender Kumar Vs Late Sh. Dhani Ram through Lrs and Ors. & Ors.

Dwarka Prasad Vs Meena Taparia & Ors.

Ircon International Ltd. Vs Pcl-Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. Jv

Ircon International Ltd. Vs M/S Pcl-Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (Jv).