Dismissed¶26

Braham Prakash & Ors. v. Daya Ram

Delhi HC8 May 2025C.R.P./114/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.R.P. 114/2017; CM APPL. 18288/2017; CM APPL. 32146/2017; High Court of Delhi; Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.; decision 08.05.2025; Section 115 CPC; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; dismissal of Order VII Rule 11 application; ADJ-04 Saket; petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to agitate contentions at final hearing; expedition of trial; unnecessary adjournments; pendency since 2013; plaintiff's evidence closed 10.12.2024; Braham Prakash & Ors. v. Daya Ram.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Petition, with liberty to agitate all contentions before the learned Trial Court at the time of the final hearing in the matter, in accordance with law; all pending Applications closed and all rights and contentions left open. ¶26

Braham Prakash & Ors. Vs Daya Ram — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~74

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 08.05.2025

¶4

- C.R.P. 114/2017, CM APPL. 18288/2017, CM APPL. 32146/2017

¶5

BRAHAM PRAKASH & ORS .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. K.C. Dubey, Mr. Uttakarsh Bhargava, Mr. Ajay P., Mr. R.K. Dagar, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

DAYA RAM .....Respondent Through: None.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶11

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

¶12

This Court had by its order dated 16.04.2025 passed the following directions:

¶13

“2. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] seeking to challenge the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the learned ADJ-04, SouthEast, District Court South, Saket, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC filed by the Petitioners has been dismissed.

¶14

The record reflects that by an order dated 12.10.2022, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had recorded the submission of the Petitioners that the matter is at the stage of Petitioners’ evidence before the learned Trial Court. The Coordinate Bench also directed the learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. It is almost 2 ½ years since then.

¶15

Neither the learned Counsel for the Petitioners nor the learned Counsel for the Respondent appearing before the Court, are able to assist the Court.

¶16

The Petitioners shall file an Affidavit with respect to the status of the

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.05.2025 C.R.P. 114/2017 19:25:55

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

proceedings before the learned Trial Court within two weeks from today.”

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondent (Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) is unnecessarily delaying the adjudication of the present case before the learned Trial Court. Learned Counsel seeks to rely upon the orders passed by the learned Trial Court from time to time including orders dated 26.09.2024 and 10.12.2024.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that given the pendency of the matter, he would be satisfied if directions are passed to expedite the trial.

¶23

None appears for the Respondent today.

¶24

A perusal of the orders passed by the learned Trial Court, which have been placed on record, shows that the Plaintiff’s evidence stands closed in terms of the order dated 10.12.2024 and the matter is now listed for the Defendants’ evidence.

¶25

After some arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to agitate all contentions before the learned Trial Court at the time of the final hearing in the matter.

¶26

The Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, albeit in accordance with law. All pending Applications stand closed. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open in this regard.

¶27