Disposed¶14

Praveen Gulati v. Jyotsna Ashra and Anr.

Delhi HC4 Feb 2025CM(M)/4119/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Praveen Gulati v. Jyotsna Ashra & Anr., CM(M) 4119/2024, High Court of Delhi, decided 04.02.2025 by Ravinder Dudeja, J. Keywords: written statement filed beyond statutory period of 90 days; no application for condonation of delay; period for filing written statement directory not mandatory; written statement taken on record subject to cost of Rs 10,000/-; petitioner's concession; trial court orders silent on plea of non-receipt of documents; petition disposed of. No statute or precedent cited in the order.

What did the court decide?

Written statement to be taken on record, subject to payment of cost of Rs 10,000/- by the respondents to the petitioner before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. ¶14

Praveen Gulati Vs Jyotsna Ashra and Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Written statement to be taken on record, subject to payment of cost of Rs 10,000/- by the respondents to the petitioner before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the written statement filed by the respondents beyond the statutory period of 90 days, without an application for condonation of delay, could properly be taken on record by the trial court. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The respondent's contention that the written statement could not be filed within time because the complete set of documents was not received is contrary to the record; the trial court's orders do not reflect that any such submission was made.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The statutory period prescribed for filing the written statement is not mandatory but directory in nature.

¶12

Key takeaways

In view of the directory nature of the period for filing the written statement and the petitioner's concession, the petition is disposed of with directions that the written statement be taken on record, subject to cost of Rs 10,000/- to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Ravinder Dudeja, J.), by order dated 04.02.2025 in CM(M) 4119/2024, disposed of a petition challenging the trial court's taking of the respondents' written statement on record beyond the statutory period of 90 days without any application for condonation of delay. The Court held that the statutory period prescribed for filing a written statement is not mandatory but directory in nature. Noting that no condonation application had been filed, that the respondents' plea of non-receipt of the complete set of documents was contrary to the record, and the petitioner counsel's concession (no objection to the written statement being taken on record subject to heavy cost), the Court directed that the written statement be taken on record subject to cost of Rs 10,000/- payable by the respondents to the petitioner before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

¶1

$~52

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CM(M) 4119/2024 PRAVEEN GULATI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Manasi Bhushan, Ms. Sanjana Patel, Ms. Shashi Sharma, Ms. Hanna Shirin, Mr. Mohammed Navas K & Mr. Akshit Chaudhary, Advs versus JYOTSNA ASHRA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Jasmine Detwani, Ms. Hemlata, Advs alongwith respondent No.1 in person. Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel with Mr. Gourav Mundra, Adv GNCTD/R2.

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶5

O R D E R % 04.02.2025

¶6

In this present petition the main grievance of the petitioner is that written statement filed by the respondents was taken on record beyond the statutory period of 90 days without application for condonation of delay having been filed by the respondents.

¶7

Undisputedly no application was filed by the respondents for condonation of delay. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the written statement could not be filed within the statutory period because of the reason that the complete set of documents was not

¶8

This is a digitally signed order.

¶9

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 10/02/2025 at 14:50:16

¶10

received.

¶11

The contention of respondent is contrary to the record. The trial court’s orders do not reflect that any such submission was made.

¶12

Be that as it may, the statutory period prescribed for filing the written statement is not mandatory but directory in nature.

¶13

The Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that she has no objection in case written statement be allowed to be taken on record subject to heavy cost.

¶14

Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances and the fact that the period prescribed for filing the written statement is only directory in nature and taking note of the concession granted by the petitioner, petition is disposed of with directions that the written statement be taken on record, subject to cost of Rs 10,000/- to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

¶15

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶16

FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Sk/fs

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 10/02/2025 at 14:50:16

Praveen Gulati v. Jyotsna Ashra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Gulati v. Jyotsna Ashra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Delhi State Legal Services Authority Dslsa ) Vs Smt. Durgawanti & Ors.

Satish Goel Vs Director General Bis and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Late Gulshan Kumar Jain (Since Deceased through Lrs) & Anr.

Manohar Lal Bansiwal and Anr. Vs Gyan Chand Bansiwal

Land and Development Office Vs Arun Kumar Dawar

Shubham Kumar Tripathi Vs Narender Kumar Singh & Ors.

Rahul Shaw and Anr. Vs Pritam Mukherjee

M/S Seth Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Nimitaya Properties Ltd. and Ors.

Satish Goel Vs Director General Bis and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Late Gulshan Kumar Jain (Since Deceased through Lrs) & Anr.

Manohar Lal Bansiwal and Anr. Vs Gyan Chand Bansiwal

Udit Bansal Vs Manju Bansal & Ors.

Goodearth Bricks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Movie Time Cinema Pvt. Ltd.

Manish Kumar Yadav Vs Sakshi Yadav