Disposed¶26

Sarita Devi & Anr. v. Asha Ram

Delhi HC19 Feb 2025CM(M)/66/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Striking off defence; restoration of defence; examination of parties; conditional costs; Article 227 Constitution of India; Section 115 CPC; CS DJ 663/2023 Rohini Courts; illiterate litigant; video conference appearance; medical prescription not produced for relevant date; concession by respondent; CM(M) 66/2025; Delhi High Court; Ravinder Dudeja, J.; order dated 03.06.2024 set aside; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.06.2024 set aside; defence of the petitioners restored, subject to payment of the cost imposed vide order dated 01.04.2024, payment of additional cost of Rs 10,000/- to the respondent, and personal appearance before the Trial Court for examination in terms of order dated 18.03.2024. ¶26

Sarita Devi & Anr. Vs Asha Ram — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 03.06.2024 striking off the defence of the petitioners for non-appearance at the examination of parties and non-payment of cost ought to be interfered with and set aside in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

¶11

Court's answer

Even assuming petitioner No.2 was unwell, he could have appeared through video conference as petitioner No.1 did and could have arranged payment of the cost through his counsel, which was not done; no prescription for 03.06.2024 was placed on record.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

In view of the petitioners' readiness to pay the previous cost and the respondent's concession, the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 is set aside and the defence of the petitioners is restored, subject to payment of the cost imposed vide order dated 01.04.2024, additional cost of Rs 10,000/- to the respondent, and personal appearance before the Trial Court for examination in terms of order dated 18.03.2024.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Miscellaneous (Main) petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 115 CPC against the order dated 03.06.2024 of the District Judge-04, Rohini Courts, striking off the defendants' defence in a suit for possession, injunction, arrears of rent and mesne profits, for failure to appear for examination of parties and non-payment of cost. Petitioner No.1 had appeared by video conference pleading illiteracy; petitioner No.2 absented himself on the ground of illness, though no prescription for the relevant date was produced, and the Court observed that he could have appeared through VC and remitted the cost through counsel. With the petitioners expressing readiness to pay the earlier cost of Rs 5,000/- each and the respondent conceding restoration subject to heavy cost, the High Court set aside the impugned order and restored the defence, conditional upon payment of the earlier cost, additional cost of Rs 10,000/- to the respondent, and personal appearance for examination in terms of the order dated 18.03.2024. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

$~70

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 66/2025

¶4

SARITA DEVI & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. S. C. Sharma & Ms. Priya Sharma, Advs

¶6

versus

¶7

ASHA RAM .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Saini & Mr. Aman Batra, Advs

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

O R D E R % 19.02.2025

¶10

CM(M) 66/2025 & CM APPL. 2296/2025 (Interim Stay)

¶11

This is a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC against the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-04, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS DJ 663/2023 titled as Asha Ram vs Sarita Devi .

¶12

The petitioners are the defendants in the suit for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits filed by the respondent.

¶13

Perusal of the record reveals that on 18.03.2024 upon completion of pleadings, the Trial Court directed the petitioners to appear in person for examination of parties on 01.04.2024.

¶14

Petitioners did not appear for examination on the date fixed i.e. 01.04.2024. The Trial Court was of the view that appearance of the

¶15

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 00:45:35

¶16

petitioners was necessary for the examination prior to the settlement of issues and therefore, granted one more opportunity for the said purpose, subject to cost of Rs 5,000/- upon each of the petitioners

¶17

On the next date i.e. 03.06.2024, petitioner No.1 appeared through VC and on being examined by the Court, she feigned ignorance stating that she is illiterate. Petitioner No.2 did not appear as his counsel informed the Trial Court that he has gone to Doctor as he was suffering from diarrhoea.

¶18

Since petitioner No.2 was not present for the examination and cost was not paid, the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 03.06.2024 struck of the defence of the petitioners herein and, listed the matter for plaintiff’s evidence.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 could not appear as he was unwell on the date fixed i.e. 03.06.2024. In support of said submission, learned counsel relies upon the prescription of the Doctor dated 01.04.2024 and 06.06.2024. However, no prescription of 03.06.2024 has been placed on record to show that petitioner No.2 infact visited the Doctor on that day.

¶20

Nevertheless the prescriptions dated 01.04.2024 and 06.06.2024 does show that during the said period, petitioner No.2 was suffering from fever, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting.

¶21

Even assuming that petitioner No.2 was unwell, he could have appeared through VC as was done by petitioner No.1 and could have sent the cost to his counsel for being paid to the petitioner, but it was done.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are ready and willing to pay the cost as imposed by the learned Trial Court.

¶23

¶24

After part submissions, learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has no objection in case the defence of the petitioners be restored subject to payment of heavy cost.

¶25

Since the petitioners are ready to make the payment of the previous cost and in view of the concession granted by the respondent, the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 is set aside and the defence of the petitioners is restored, subject to the condition that they would pay the cost imposed vide order dated 01.04.2024 and shall also pay the additional cost of Rs 10,000/to the respondent with further condition that petitioners shall appear in person before the Trial Court for their examination in terms of order dated 18.03.2024.

¶26

The petition is disposed of in terms of this order.

¶27

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶28

FEBRUARY 19, 2025 Sk/f

¶29

Sarita Devi & Anr. v. Asha Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Devi & Anr. v. Asha Ram

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

M/S. Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bobbel Nagra

Sachin Singhal Vs Sonali Singhal

Indira Gandhi Library Society and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vijay Power Generators Ltd. Vs Tarun Engineering Syndicate

Mayank Adlakha Vs Arya Publishing Company

Pyramid Finmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rk Sinha and Associates and Ors.

Salil Sehgal & Anr. Vs M/S Balaji Zauba Thr Satyendra Kumar (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs

Juli Vs Rohit & Ors.

M/S. Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bobbel Nagra

Sachin Singhal Vs Sonali Singhal

Indira Gandhi Library Society and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Excel Engineering Company Vs M/S Caparo Engineering India Ltd. & Anr.

Manjeet Singh & Ors. Vs Ved Prakash Yadav & Ors.

Sh. Sandeep Garg Vs Smt. Romi Garg