Dismissed

Sangeeta Chhabra & Ors. v. Sumit Chhabra

Delhi HC8 Oct 2024FAO(OS)/140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a chamber appeal. The Single Judge had closed the right to file a written statement in a partition suit due to delay beyond statutory and grace periods. The appellants failed to prove illegible service as grounds for extension, and the Court found no merit in the challenge.

What did the court decide?

Present appeal along with the applications is dismissed.

Sangeeta Chhabra & Ors. Vs Sumit Chhabra — Partition | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 140/2024 & C.M.Nos.59361-59362/2024

¶4

SANGEETA CHHABRA & ORS. .....Appellants

¶5

Through: Mr.Rajneesh Sood with Mr.Gurpreeet Singh, Mr.Dhruv Kumar, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SUMIT CHHABRA .....Respondent Through: None

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 08.10.2024

¶11

Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 30^th August, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.A. No.85/2024. The Chamber Appeal was filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 22^nd August, 2023 passed by the learned Joint Registrar in CS(OS) No.775/2022, recording that the right of the appellants to file written statement and affidavit of admission/denial of documents in the suit for partition stands closed.

¶12

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Chamber Appeal on the ground that the appellants (defendant Nos. 6-8 in the civil suit) had filed their written statements not only exceeding the limitation period of thirty (30) days but also the additional grace period of ninety (90) days permissible under Chapter VII Rule 4, of the Delhi High Court Rules (Original Side), 2018.

¶13

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 03/07/2025 at 00:01:42

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants states that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that a complete and legible copy of the plaint for partition was served upon them only on 6^th May, 2023 and therefore, the limitation period for filing written statement must start from the said date.

¶15

He further states that the delay which resulted in crossing limitation period of thirty (30) days was unintentional and only due to the ongoing settlement talks with the respondent (plaintiff therein) and due to summer vacations.

¶16

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the appellants have not disputed the fact that the record of the suit papers in CS(OS) No.775/2022 were served upon them on 20^th January, 2023. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellants were served by the process server on the said date. Additionally, it is also not in dispute that the appellants were also served the suit papers vide speed post on 21^st January, 2023 and by way of WhatsApp on 23^rd January, 2023.

¶17

The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the said suit papers contained certain documents that were illegible and thereby extending the limitation period is incorrect as the typed copies of the said documents were already attached with the original papers. The appellants have themselves admitted that they received the typed copies of the said documents along with the original suit papers.

¶18

Consequently, it is clear that the date of filing the written statement and the affidavit of admission/denial of documents in the suit for partition exceeded both the statutory period of limitation of thirty (30) days as well as the additional grace period of ninety (90) days. Neither the settlement talks nor summer vacations can be a ground for extension of statutory period for

¶19

¶20

filing the written statement and the affidavit of admission/denial of documents. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out. The present appeal along with the applications is dismissed.

¶21

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶23

OCTOBER 8, 2024 KA

¶24

Sangeeta Chhabra & Ors. v. Sumit Chhabra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Chhabra & Ors. v. Sumit Chhabra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Harpyari (Deceased) through (LR-1B) Brij Bhushan Sharma Vs Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society and Ors.

Smt. Harpyari ( Deceased) through LR-1A Bharat Bhushan Sharma Vs Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society and Ors.

Rajat Dilwali Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr.

Jagdish Chander Suneja Vs Subhash Chander Suneja & Ors.

Smt. Sumita Marwah Vs Mr. Vikas Vij & Ors.

Pukhraj Singh Chug Vs Charanjit Kaur Sawhney & Ors.

Bcc Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhupender Singh & Anr.

Jitender Gupta Vs Ritu Gupta & Ors.

Shahi Idgah Managing Committee Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Union of India Vs Ocl Iron and Steel Limited

Resident Welfare Association 12 Block Subhash Nagar through Its President Shashi Kant Alagh Vs Krishan Devnani Executive Engineer (M-1) Wz South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Veena Jain Vs City Union Bank Limited & Ors.

Nisha Malhotra Vs Naman Sharma & Ors.

Rahul Dhaka Vikas Society Regd Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.