Disposed¶23

Pallavi Sharma v. Shri Katikithal Srinivas and Ors.

Delhi HC14 May 2025CONT.CAS(C)/1491/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC order (Anish Dayal J, 14.05.2025) disposing of CONT.CAS(C) 1491/2024 (CM APPL. 4462/2025), Pallavi Sharma v. Shri Katikithal Srinivas & Ors: status report of 26.11.2024 showed the subject property demolished and sealed with photographs filed; petitioner absent 19.09.2024 and 24.01.2025 with repeated adjournment requests thereafter; Court found no reason to sustain the petition, dispensed with contemplated costs (main counsel unavailable), and disposed of it with liberty to revive or approach the STF. Respondent side included counsel for MCD. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without imposition of costs, with liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition or otherwise approach the STF in case they have an objection in this regard. ¶23

Pallavi Sharma Vs Shri Katikithal Srinivas and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without imposition of costs, with liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition or otherwise approach the STF in case they have an objection in this regard.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should sustain or continue this petition (CONT.CAS(C) 1491/2024), given that the status report records the property as demolished and sealed and the petitioner has shown lack of diligence with the matter on board since September 2024. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Proxy counsel requested an adjournment, but the Court declined it, finding no reason to continue the matter given it had been on board since September 2024.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Having perused the status report recording that the property lies demolished and sealed and that photographs have been filed, the Court finds no reason to sustain the petition.

¶12

Key takeaways

It is quite apparent that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this petition.ratio¶21
Although the Court was inclined to dispose of the petition with costs on the petitioner for lack of diligence, costs were ultimately not imposed because the main counsel for petitioner was not available.ratio¶22
The petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition or otherwise approach the STF in case they have an objection.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CONT.CAS(C) 1491/2024 / CM APPL. 4462/2025 | Pallavi Sharma v. Shri Katikithal Srinivas and Ors | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal | Order dated 14.05.2025. A status report dated 26 November 2024 recorded the details of the action taken, with the property lying demolished and sealed and photographs filed. The Court, on perusal, found no reason to sustain the petition. The matter had been on board since September 2024: no one appeared for the petitioner on 19.09.2024 and 24.01.2025, and counsel sought accommodation/a short date/time on 14.10.2024, 27.11.2024 and 03.02.2025. Proxy counsel's adjournment request on the day of this order was declined. Though inclined to dispose of the petition with costs for the petitioner's lack of diligence, the Court refrained from imposing costs since the main counsel was not available. Petition disposed of with liberty to revive it or otherwise approach the STF in case of objection.

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1491/2024 CM APPL. 4462/2025

¶4

PALLAVI SHARMA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Aman, Proxy Counsel.

¶6

versus

¶7

SHRI KATIKITHAL SRINIVAS AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate with Mr. Gauransh Vyas, Advocate. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal SC for MCD with Ms. Sheweta Singh, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 14.05.2025

¶11

Status report has been filed dated 26^th November 2024, where the details of the action have been recorded. The property is lying demolished and sealed and photographs have been filed.

¶12

The Court has perused the same and finds no reason to sustain this petition.

¶13

Proxy counsel appears for petitioner and requests for an adjournment; however, the Court does not find any reason to continue this matter, considering that the matter has been on board since September 2024.

¶14

On the first date of 19^th September 2024, no one appeared for petitioner.

¶15

On 14^th October 2024, counsel for petitioner requested for an

¶16

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 01:37:13

¶17

accommodation.

¶18

On 27^th November 2024, counsel for petitioner stated that he was not well and again requested for a short date.

¶19

On 24^th January 2025, no one had appeared for the petitioner as well.

¶20

On 03^rd February 2025, counsel for petitioner stated that he needed time to go through the application and requested for some time to file a reply.

¶21

In view of the facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that petitioner is not interested in pursuing this petition and the Court is inclined to dispose of this petition with costs on the petitioner for their lack of diligence in pursuing the petition and the petition being on board since September 2024.

¶22

However, since the main counsel for petitioner is not available, costs are not being imposed.

¶23

Accordingly, petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition or otherwise approach the STF in case they have an objection in this regard.

¶24

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶25

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶26

MAY 14, 2025/RK/na

¶27

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶28

Pallavi Sharma v. Shri Katikithal Srinivas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallavi Sharma v. Shri Katikithal Srinivas and Ors.

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

Harpreet Kaur Sandhu Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi Thr Deputy Commissioner & Ors.

Nitlesh Lohchab Vs Prof. Kanjilal (Vice Chancellor Ignou) and Ors. & Ors.

Ajay Khanna Vs Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors.

Babu Ram Vs Sh. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Kinri Dhir Vs Veer Singh

Kinri Dhir Vs Veer Singh

Rajesh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rajiv Nath Endley & Ors. Vs Lieutenant General Arvind Walia Walia, & Ors.

Harpreet Kaur Sandhu Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi Thr Deputy Commissioner & Ors.

Nitlesh Lohchab Vs Prof. Kanjilal (Vice Chancellor Ignou) and Ors. & Ors.

Ajay Khanna Vs Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors.

Mohammad Zahid Vs Municipal Coropration of Delhi through Its Commisioner & Ors.

Aashish Sethi Vs Amol Srivastava & Ors.

Smt. Preeti Gupta Vs Sh. Surender Gupta @Sumit