Ankit Rathi v. the Executive Engineer & Ors.

Delhi HC7 Mar 2025CM(M)/459/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ankit Rathi v. The Executive Engineer & Ors.; CM(M) 459/2025; CM APPL. 13798/2025 (exemption); CM APPL. 13797/2025 (stay); High Court of Delhi; Justice Ravinder Dudeja; decided 07.03.2025; Civil Suit No.527/2021; District Judge-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts; impugned order dated 31.01.2025; Section 151 CPC; recall of order dated 05.04.2022 closing right to file written statement; cost of Rs.25,000/- reduced to Rs.5000/-; Rs.15,000/- Shahidara Bar Association deposit; Rs.10,000/- to petitioner; recovery suit for Rs.50,00,000/-; no reasons assigned for cost reduction; written statement taken on record; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 held unsustainable to the extent it reduces the cost (the reduction from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5,000/- not sustained). ¶¶28

Ankit Rathi Vs the Executive Engineer & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 held unsustainable to the extent it reduces the cost (the reduction from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5,000/- not sustained).

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 of the trial court — particularly its reduction of the cost imposed on respondent no.1 from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5,000/- — is sustainable when effected without recorded reasons, and whether it should be set aside.

¶¶21

Court's answer

The learned trial court did not assign any reason whatsoever for the reduction of cost from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5,000/- in the order dated 31.01.2025.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The basis for the trial court reducing the cost was inexplicable, since the trial court had already concluded that the application for seeking permission to file the written statement was too vague.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 31.01.2025 cannot be sustained to the extent it reduces the cost; accordingly, the petition is allowed.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi — CM(M) 459/2025, decided 07.03.2025 (Ravinder Dudeja, J). Petitioner (plaintiff in Civil Suit No.527/2021, a recovery suit for Rs.50,00,000/-) challenged the order dated 31.01.2025 of the learned District Judge-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, whereby the cost imposed on respondent no.1 (Executive Engineer) — originally Rs.25,000/- under the order dated 10.04.2024 allowing recall (under Section 151 CPC) of the 05.04.2022 order closing respondent no.1's right to file its written statement — was reduced to Rs.5,000/- and the written statement taken on record. Held: (i) the trial court assigned no reason whatsoever for the reduction of cost, although it had itself concluded that the recall application was 'too vague'; (ii) what prompted the reduction was inexplicable. Consequently, the impugned order was held unsustainable to the extent it reduced the cost, and the petition was allowed. Companion applications CM APPL. 13798/2025 (exemption) and CM APPL. 13797/2025 (stay) were disposed of in the course of the order.

¶1

$~45

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 459/2025

¶4

ANKIT RATHI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ORS. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Shiven Varma, Adv. GNCTD for R-1.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R % 07.03.2025

¶10

CM APPL. 13798/2025 (EXEMPTION)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

CM(M) 459/2025 & CM APPL. 13797/2025 (STAY)

¶14

The petitioner challenges the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned District Jduge-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.527/2021 titled as “Ankit Rathi Vs. The Executive Engineer & Others”.

¶15

Petitioner filed a recovery suit for Rs.50,00,000/- against the respondents. Respondent no.1 did not file the written statement within the stipulated period, and therefore, the trial court vide order dated 05.04.2022 closed the right of respondent no.1 to file the written statement.

¶16

Respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to recall of the order dated 05.04.2022 which was allowed by order dated

¶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 01/07/2025 at 00:44:39

¶19

10.04.2024 subject to cost of Rs.25,000/-, out of which, Rs.15,000/- were ordered to be deposited with Shahdara Bar Association for the welfare of the Advocates and rest Rs.10,000/- were to be paid to the petitioner.

¶20

Respondent no. 1 again filed an application u/s 151 for waiver of the cost. On such application, the cost was reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5000/- and the written statement filed by respondent no.1 was taken on record vide impugned order dated 31.05.2025.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the reduction of cost. It is submitted that despite the delay in filing the written statement, for no reason the trial court has proceeded to reduce the cost, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the justification for reduction of cost is mentioned in his application filed before the trial court.

¶23

As per order dated 10.04.2024, the trial court was of the view that the application filed by the respondent seeking recall of the order dated 05.04.2022 was too vague to be considered and deserved dismissal out rightly. However, in the interest of justice, the application was allowed, subject to cost of Rs.25,000/-.

¶24

On a perusal of the order dated 31.01.2025, it is evident that learned trial court did not assign any reason whatsoever for reduction of cost from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5000/-.

¶25

It is not understood as to what prompted the trial court to reduce the cost, once having concluded that the application for seeking permission to file the written statement was too vague.

¶26

Since the trial court has failed to assign any reason for reduction of

¶27

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 01/07/2025 at 00:44:39

¶28

cost, and even otherwise on merits also, there is just explanation for reducing the cost, in these circumstances, I am unable to sustain the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 to the extent it reduces the cost. 11. The petition is therefore allowed in terms of the above order.

¶29

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶30

MARCH 7, 2025/ib/f/r

¶31

Ankit Rathi v. the Executive Engineer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Rathi v. the Executive Engineer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avg Logistics Limited Vs Indo Money Securities Private Limited & Ors.

Nttesh Arora Vs Isha Arora

Anu Kapur Vs Durga Prasad Ray

State Bank of India Vs Late Yogendra Sharma & Ors.

Amir Khan & Ors. Vs Smt Sayra Bano & Ors.

Frankie Lallawmsanga Vs M/S Bajaj Processpack Limited

Veer Singh through Power of Attorney Vs Kinri Dhir and Another & Anr.

Kumud Sethi & Anr. Vs Raj Kumari Babbar & Ors.

Avg Logistics Limited Vs Indo Money Securities Private Limited & Ors.

Nttesh Arora Vs Isha Arora

Anu Kapur Vs Durga Prasad Ray

Blue Leaf Corporate Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar Kakkar

Dr. Subhash Vijayran Vs Dr. Sreenivas Madireddy & Anr.

Shivani Kapoor and Anr. Vs Sonu Bakshi and Anr.