Dismissed

Ravinder Yadav v. Deepak Yadav & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Dec 2025CM(M)/2383/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of a Section 151 CPC application and its allowance of an additional document application under Order VII Rule 14. The Court found the petition devoid of merit and frivolous, imposing costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

Ravinder Yadav Vs Deepak Yadav & Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 + CM(M) 2383/2025, CM APPL. 77374/2025 & CM APPL. 77375/2025

¶4

RAVINDER YADAV .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Petitioner in person ( through videoconferencing ). versus

¶6

DEEPAK YADAV & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶8

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶9

Petitioner/plaintiff has assailed order dated 20.11.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby his application under Section 151 CPC was dismissed with cost and his other application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC was allowed subject to cost.

¶10

Petitioner/plaintiff has appeared in person and at the outset, he was offered adjournment so that he could engage a counsel, be it a private counsel or a legal aid counsel. But the petitioner/plaintiff rejected the offer, contending that he wants to address in person only. As such, I heard the petitioner/plaintiff.

¶11

CM(M) 2383/2025

¶12

Page 1 of 3 pages

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:51 -08'00'

¶15

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 8.12.2025 17:13:31

¶16

The application under Section 151 CPC, which got dismissed by way of the impugned order is at pdf 159, forming part of Annexure R-19 and the same is titled: “APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR OBJECTING TO THE ADJOURNMENT DATED 01.02.2025 SOUGHT BY DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL MR. VIKAS TANWAR AND BY DEEPAK YADAV ON 17.07.2025 IN COURT NO.6 ON FALSE GROUNDS”. It appears from the impugned order that on being called upon to address on the application, the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that he is not able to tell the contents thereof, which made the learned trial court believe that the application was false and frivolous, so the application was dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

¶17

It is submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff that he had tried to explain but the learned trial court did not hear him. No other submission has been advanced. In view of the specific judicial order, I find no reason to believe what the petitioner/plaintiff is saying today. Rather, the manner and content of the subject application conveys that the same was drafted by some advocate. In the recent past, it has been observed that some of the advocates when finding it difficult to address in support of their application or petition, draft the same and make the litigant appear in person. Be that as it may, I am unable to find any infirmity, much less perversity in the impugned order, so far as the dismissal of application under Section 151 CPC is concerned.

¶18

As regards the other application of petitioner/plaintiff, the same was under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for permission to place on record additional

Page 2 of 3 pages

CM(M) 2383/2025

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 8.12.2025 17:13:31

¶24

documents and the same was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 500/- towards cost of delay in filing those documents. Even this part of the impugned order cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is found not just devoid of merit but completely frivolous, so the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner/plaintiff with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶26

7. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information.

¶27

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4a GIRISH fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, KATHPALIA serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879 65ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:27 -08'00'

¶28

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶29

DECEMBER 08, 2025/ dr

¶30

CM(M) 2383/2025

¶31

Page 3 of 3 pages

¶32

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 8.12.2025 17:13:31

Ravinder Yadav v. Deepak Yadav & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Yadav v. Deepak Yadav & Anr.

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

Vakeel Ahmed Vs Kamlesh Gupta

Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S G S Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Soni Dave

Katar Singh and Anr. Vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Sumit Mehta Vs Divya Garg

Megha Nigam Vs Rohan Nigam

M/S Ananyaa Space Design and Consultants & Anr. Vs M/S Ranjit Interior

Malti Devi Vs Kapil Swami & Ors.

Vakeel Ahmed Vs Kamlesh Gupta

Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S G S Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Soni Dave

Dr Tariq Jalaly Vs Dr Tabbassum Bano

Shweta Jain through Spa Tarun Jain Vs Nand Lal Goyal

Sh. Puneet Gautam, Vs Sh. Jugal Kishore Goyal and Ors.