Disposed¶24

Jitendar Kumar Sharma v. Anita Anand

Delhi HC25 Feb 2026CM(M)/233/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; CM(M) 233/2026; JITENDAR KUMAR SHARMA vs ANITA ANAND; decided 25.02.2026 (oral order); Article 227 Constitution of India 1950; Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure 1908; leave to defend; security deposit of 50% of suit amount; CS SCJ No. 1099/2020; Trial Court order dated 20.04.2024 upheld; plea of financial hardship/wife's medical treatment rejected; petition disposed of as devoid of merits; associated applications CM APPL. 6327/2026 (exemption) disposed and CM APPL. 6326/2026 (stay); respondent appeared by none.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's plea regarding his financial condition does not justify modification of the impugned order with respect to the amount directed to be deposited as security before the Trial Court. ¶23

Jitendar Kumar Sharma Vs Anita Anand — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~5

¶2

I� THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT �EW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision:25^th February, 2026

¶4

CM(M) 233/2026 JITENDAR KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Lakshay Yadav, Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Abhishek Gusain, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

ANITA ANAND .....Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HO�'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ�EESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶10

ORDER (Oral)

¶11

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶12

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

¶13

CM APPL. 6327/2026 (for exemption)

¶14

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 233/2026 & CM APPL. 6326/2026 (for stay)

¶15

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the order dated 20^th April, 2024, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS SCJ No. 1099/2020, whereby the leave to defend was granted to the petitioner/defendant, subject to deposit of 50% of the suit amount as security in the favour of the plaintiff.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

CM(M) 233/2026

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 6.02.2026 11:30:49

¶21

person and is not in a position to deposit the said amount, as he has to look after his family and further due to the medical condition of his wife, a substantial portion of his earning is spent on her treatment.

¶22

Heard. Record perused.

¶23

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Trial Court has passed the same after taking into consideration all the material available on the record. The plea regarding the financial condition of the petitioner, as raised before this Court, does not justify the prayer seeking modification of the impugned order with respect to the amount directed to be deposited as security before the learned Trial Court. This court, therefore, does not find any illegality of infirmity in the impugned order as it is a reasoned order passed in accordance with law, and the same is upheld.

¶24

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as being devoid of any merits. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

RAJ�EESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 25, 2026/ nd/ik

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

CM(M) 233/2026

¶29

Page 2 of 2

¶30

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 6.02.2026 11:30:49

Jitendar Kumar Sharma v. Anita Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendar Kumar Sharma v. Anita Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumkum Sareen Vs Savirtri Devi (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Anr.

Liyakhat Hasan (Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs Kamal Kapoor Dubey

Jatin B. Ghatge and Anr. Vs Harish Chander Ghatge

Laxman Vs D v Singh & Ors.

Sh. Suresh Kumar Vs Sh. Rakesh Chawla & Anr.

Veena Singh Vs Satej Kumar Bajaj Alias Kumar Bajaj Alias Satej Kumar

M/S D.R. International through Its Proprietor Sh. Dinesh Singh Panwar Vs M/S Ju Cargo Logistics & Ors.

Ranbir Kumar Singhla Vs Espal and Company

Kumkum Sareen Vs Savirtri Devi (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Anr.

Liyakhat Hasan (Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs Kamal Kapoor Dubey

Jatin B. Ghatge and Anr. Vs Harish Chander Ghatge

M/S Digjam Ltd. Vs Sh. Kranti Arora (through Its Lr)

Pawan Kumar Vs Gopal Krishan Jindal

Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs Hans Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.