Disposed¶12

Rajiv Gupta and Anr. v. Prabha Devi and Anr.

Delhi HC15 Jul 2025CM(M)/1224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; grave illegality or perversity; recall of order closing opportunity to file written statement; defence struck off; condonation of delay; written statement taken on record with cost Rs.10,000/-; written statement filed on 102nd day from service; injunction suit; hardship and medical condition of defendants; judicious exercise of discretion; Bharat Kalva vs. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3976 (cited by petitioner); CM(M) 1224/2025; High Court of Delhi; Justice Manoj Jain; decision dated 15.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was disposed of without interference with the impugned order dated 27.05.2025, and pending applications were disposed of. ¶12

Rajiv Gupta and Anr. Vs Prabha Devi and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was disposed of without interference with the impugned order dated 27.05.2025, and pending applications were disposed of.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Trial Court order dated 27.05.2025 (recall of the closure of the written-statement opportunity and taking of the written statement on record with cost) warrants interference by this Court under Article 227, interference being permissible only on grave illegality or perversity.

¶9

Court's answer

In proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking supervisory jurisdiction, interference is warranted only when there is grave illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Court's conclusion that the delay in filing the written statement had been properly explained, and its condonation of the delay while burdening the defendants with a cost of Rs.10,000/- for causing delay and inconvenience to the plaintiff, formed part of the impugned order's reasoning.

¶10

Key takeaways

Since the discretion of the learned Trial Court appeared to have been exercised in a judicious manner, this Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 and disposed of the petition accordingly.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J., oral), CM(M) 1224/2025, decided 15.07.2025: Plaintiffs in an injunction suit, invoking Article 227, challenged the Trial Court's order dated 27.05.2025 recalling its order dated 02.04.2024 (by which, service having been effected on 11.01.2024, the opportunity to file the written statement had been closed and the defence struck off on expiry of the statutory period) and directing that the defendants' written statement, filed on the 102nd day from service, be taken on record with a cost of Rs.10,000/-, on account of the hardship cited and the defendants' medical conditions. Held: interference under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is warranted only where there is grave illegality or perversity; the Trial Court's discretion having been exercised judiciously, there was no compelling reason to interfere. Petition disposed of; pending applications disposed of. (Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3976, cited on behalf of petitioners.)

¶1

$~86

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 15^th July, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1224/2025 & CM APPL. 41233-41235/2025 RAJIV GUPTA AND ANR

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Rajinder Mathur, Mr. Tarun Mathur and Mr. Akshat Singhal, Advocates.

versus

PRABHA DEVI AND ANR

.....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶13

Petitioner is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and has filed a suit which seeks injunction.

¶14

There are two defendants in the abovesaid suit and they both were served on 11.01.2024 and were directed to file written statement within the statutory period.

¶15

However, when the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 02.04.2024, noticing that the statutory period has already expired, the opportunity to file written statement was closed and their defense was struck off.

¶16

Defendants, however, moved an application seeking recall of the abovesaid order dated 02.04.2024.

¶17

The learned Trial Court, keeping in view the reason assigned by them, has recalled the order and permitted them to participate in the proceedings and

¶18

CM(M) 1224/2025 1

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 7.07.2025 18:17:57

¶20

written statement has also been directed to be taken on record, albeit, with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

¶21

Such order dated 27.05.2025 is under challenge.

¶22

The impugned order would indicate that the learned Trial Court was of the view that the procedural law is a handmaiden of justice and the written statement had been filed on 102^nd day from the date of service of summons and keeping in mind the hardship cited by such defendants and their medical conditions, the learned Trial Court thought it appropriate to permit them to participate in the proceedings.

¶23

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that such power to condone the delay should be used sparingly in appropriate cases and no litigant should assume that he can seek condonation of delay, as a matter of right. He relies upon Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3976.

¶24

Fact, however, remains that the petitioner herein has invoked supervisory jurisdiction by filing a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India and interference is warranted only when there is grave illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶25

The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the contentions made by the concerned defendants, came to conclusion that the delay had been explained properly and while exercising discretion, delay has been condoned while also burdening the defendants with cost of Rs.10,000/- for causing delay and inconvenience to the plaintiff.

¶26

Since the discretion seems to have been exercised in a judicious manner, this Court does not find any compelling reason to interfere with the abovesaid order by invoking supervisory powers under Article 227 of

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 7.07.2025 18:17:57

¶28

CM(M) 1224/2025 2

¶29

Constitution of India.

¶30