Dismissed

Parmod Bahl v. Ashok Kumar Sethi

Delhi HC30 Sept 2024RC.REV./252/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On withdrawal of an extra-judicial conference/leave to defend application by the petitioner, who had filed supporting documents showing she is a practicing Advocate, the High Court dismissed the petition with liberty to move an appropriate application before the Trial Court. The Trial Court was directed to examine the documents.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to move appropriate application in Trial Court; Trial Court directed to examine documents and pass order.

Parmod Bahl Vs Ashok Kumar Sethi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RC.REV. 252/2022

¶4

PARMOD BAHL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Neeta Bahl, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

ASHOK KUMAR SETHI .....Respondent Through: None

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶10

O R D E R % 30.09.2024

¶11

None appears for the respondent despite service.

¶12

The grievance of the Petitioner as articulated in the present petition that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Trial Court on 31.08.2022 directing that the documents evidencing the fact that the wife of Petitioner is a practicing Advocate since 2018 could not filed before the learned Trial Court. Thus, the leave to defend Application filed by the Respondent/Tenant was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who is wife of the Petitioner/landlord, submits that inadvertently these documents could not be filed before the Trial Court. However, she has filed these documents before this Court.

¶14

Learned Counsel further submits that she will be filing an appropriate application before the Trial Court along with all requisite documents to

¶15

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 04:43:09

¶16

show that she is indeed a practicing Advocate before the District Courts as well as this Court. She submits that the need of the Petitioner/Landlord is bonafide and the matter may be examined based on those documents.

¶17

Learned Counsel further submits that the in view of the documents which have also been placed on record by the Counsel before this Court, the fact that the bonafide requirement of the Petitioner/Landlord was there is no longer in dispute.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that she may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to move an appropriate application bringing on record the documents evidencing the fact that she is a practicing Advocate.

¶19

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶20

The Trial Court is requested to examine the documents filed and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶21

The Petition and all pending Applications stand disposed of.

¶22

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶23

SEPTEMBER 30, 2024/ tp

¶24

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 04:43:09

Parmod Bahl v. Ashok Kumar Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmod Bahl v. Ashok Kumar Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Bansal Vs Anup Singh (Since Deceased ) through His Lrs.

Sushil Kumar Bansal Vs Anup Singh (Since Deceased) through His Lr and Ors.

Dr N C Manocha Vs Sharif Ahmed & Anr.

Bosch Ltd. Vs Director General of Foreign Trade & Anr.

Bosch Chassis System India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.

Aditi Oberoi Vs Vinod Sehgal & Anr.