Dismissed

Smt Mehul Singh Ahluwalia v. Sh. Rishi Verma & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Dec 2024FAO(OS)/170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed an appeal complaining of delay in filing replies and observations on discovery. It ruled the appeal was not maintainable post-withdrawal of the lower appeal and noted the Single Judge had allowed the discovery application.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and applications were dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability and lack of merit.

Smt Mehul Singh Ahluwalia Vs Sh. Rishi Verma & Ors. — Partition | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 170/2024 & CM APPLs.69996-98/2024

¶4

SMT MEHUL SINGH AHLUWALIA ...Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Manu Nayar, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

SH. RISHI VERMA & ORS ...Respondents

¶8

Through: None. Date of Decision: 2^nd December, 2024 CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶11

JUDGEMENT

¶12

MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)

¶13

Present appeal has been preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1, CPC, 1908 read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 challenging the order dated 4^th September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 23607/2023 in CS(OS) 442/2022 titled “Smt Mehul Singh Ahluwalia vs. Sh. Rishi Verma & Ors.” , dismissing the application without deciding the factum of delay on the part of respondents in filing reply to the application.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the subject suit was filed by the appellant herein for partition, rendition of account, possession, recovery of mesne profit and permanent injunction against the respondents on 25^th July, 2022.

¶15

He states that Chapter II, Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court Rules, 2018 (for short ‘Rules, 2018’) provides that the Registrar shall endeavour to expeditiously dispose of all applications that are within his power under Chapter II, Rule 3 of Rules, 2018. He states that the Joint Registrar allowed the respondents to file and place on record their

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 170/2024 By:MADHU SARDANA Signing Da te:0 4.12.2024 17:37:42

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

replies/rejoinder in spite of delays of around 204 days, 506 days and 535 days, even though no application for condonation of delay was filed on behalf of the respondents. He further states that the number of days of delay in filing replies/rejoinder to all the three I.As is beyond 45 days which is not permissible under Chapter VII, Rule 5 of Rules, 2018.

¶20

He states that when the matter was argued, it was past midnight in Canada where the appellant resides and therefore, the counsel for the appellant could not obtain instructions and due to misleading statements from the counsel for the respondents, withdrew the Chamber Appeal bearing O.A. No.122/2023. He states that the Chamber Appeal was neither argued nor dismissed on merits.

¶21

He states that the respondents are cleverly using delay as a tool to extend the case timelines in order to siphon off daily joint business incomes and commercial suit properties. He states that if the replies are not taken off the record and the right of the respondents to file replies is closed, the respondents will be encouraged to continue to use these delay tactics.

¶22

This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage itself and is unable to agree with the contentions addressed.

¶23

At the first instance, it is pertinent to note that in the impugned order dated 4^th September, 2024, the learned Single Judge has categorically recorded that Chamber Appeal bearing O.A. No.122/2023, has been withdrawn unconditionally by the counsel for the appellant. Thus, having withdrawn the said appeal before the learned Single Judge, no further appeal is maintainable thereagainst. Further, it is apparent that the appellant did not press the grounds raised in the appeal before the learned Single Judge.

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 170/2024 By:MADHU SARDANA Signing Da te:0 4.12.2024 17:37:42

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

So far as the grievance of the appellant regarding observations of the learned Single Judge qua I.A. No. 23607/2023 in para 8 of the order dated 4^th September, 2024 is concerned, it would be apposite to reproduce the same hereunder:-

¶27

“8. In view of the above, learned counsel for the plaintiff states he will issue a notice to defendant nos. 1 to 5 as per Form No. 7, Appendix 'C' of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') enlisting the documents which are required to be discovered and produced by defendant nos. 1 to 5.”

¶28

A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph makes it apparent that it was the counsel for the plaintiff himself who had made a statement as recorded and was not an independent observation of the learned Single Judge. This Court is unable to fathom as to what grievance the appellant could possibly have to the said statement made by her counsel. In this context, it is also relevant to note the directions passed by the learned Single Judge in para 9 of the impugned order. The para 9 reads thus:-

¶29

“9. It is directed that upon receipt of the said notice from the plaintiff, defendant nos. 1 to 5 shall offer inspection of copies as well as originals to the plaintiff as per Form No. 8 Appendix C, CPC.”

¶30

It is clear from the above that the learned Single Judge had infact allowed the application bearing I.A. No. 23607/2023, in above terms as sought for by the appellant. Clearly, there can be no grievance against the aforesaid observation of the learned Single Judge.

¶31

In view of the above, the appeal and applications are dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability as also lacking in merits.

¶32

MANMOHAN, CJ

¶33

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶34

DECEMBER 2, 2024/ rl

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 170/2024 By:MADHU SARDANA Signing Da te:0 4.12.2024 17:37:42

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Smt Mehul Singh Ahluwalia v. Sh. Rishi Verma & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mehul Singh Ahluwalia v. Sh. Rishi Verma & 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

Smt Shubra Gupta and Anr. Vs Ramjas Foundation

Slowform Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Asish Mohapatra & Ors.

Bhavjot Singh Chandhok Vs Bakshish Singh Chandhok & Ors.

Daljit Singh and Anr. Vs Lt Col Dr Yasmin Yusufzai and Ors.

Omesh Misra Memoria Charitable Trust Vs Maneesha Tyagi & Ors.

M/S Sonal Developers Private Limited Vs M/S Durga Builders Private Limited and Ors.

Subhash Chander Bajaj (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors. Vs Inderjit Bajaj (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors.

Dr Manish Bansal Vs Dr Sanjiv Bansal

Anita Sethi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs Deputy Commissioner (South Zone) MCD & Anr.

Cheryl Betsy Mathew & Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chandan Kumar Vs National Highway Authority of India & Anr.

Vrc Construction (India) Private Limited Vs National Highway Authority of India

Wazirpur Jj Colony Association Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.