Anshumman Joshi v. Gita Nakra and Another

Delhi HC17 Apr 2026FAO/93/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anshumman Joshi v. Gita Nakra and Another, FAO 93/2026, High Court of Delhi, decided 17.04.2026, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri. Recall application of defendant under challenge to Trial Court order dated 13.01.2026 passed in relation to plaintiffs' Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC application; written statement filed with condonation of delay allowed subject to costs; Delhi High Court set aside impugned order for failure to consider respondent's stand recorded in the newly filed written statement and directed Trial Court to apply mind afresh to pleadings on record; appeal disposed of with pending application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Trial Court order dated 13.01.2026 set aside, with direction to the Trial Court to apply its mind afresh in light of the pleadings on record; appeal disposed of along with the pending application. ¶¶20

Anshumman Joshi Vs Gita Nakra and Another — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Trial Court order — which condoned the delay and took the written statement on record while dismissing the recall application — failed to consider the respondent's stand now reflected in the written statement, warranting fresh consideration of the matter in light of the pleadings on record.

¶¶17

Court's answer

A perusal of the impugned order shows that, though it condoned the delay and directed the written statement to be taken on record, it failed to consider the stand of the respondent, which has now come on record in the written statement.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to apply its mind afresh in light of the pleadings that have come on record.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

The appeal is disposed of along with the pending application, with counsel for the defendant/appellant assuring that no unnecessary adjournments will be sought before the Trial Court.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.), FAO 93/2026 — Anshumman Joshi v. Gita Nakra and Another (decided 17.04.2026): The appeal challenged the Trial Court's order dated 13.01.2026, which had dismissed the defendant/appellant's application seeking recall of the order earlier passed on the plaintiffs'/respondents' application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC. By the time of the recall application the defendant had filed its written statement with a condonation-of-delay request, which the impugned order itself allowed subject to payment of costs; counsel confirmed the costs were paid and the written statement taken on record. Observing that the impugned order, while condoning the delay and taking the written statement on record, had nevertheless failed to consider the respondent's stand now recorded in the written statement, the Court set the impugned order aside and directed the Trial Court to apply its mind afresh in light of the pleadings on record. Counsel undertook not to seek unnecessary adjournments before the Trial Court. The appeal, along with the pending application, stood disposed of.

¶1

$~36

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 93/2026

¶4

ANSHUMMAN JOSHI .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Deepak Raj Singh, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

GITA NAKRA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Mr.Unkut Gera, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 17.04.2026

¶12

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.01.2026, whereby the defendant/appellant’s application seeking recall of the order passed on an application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), came to be dismissed.

¶13

The impugned order records that, upon the plaintiffs/respondents filing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC, the same was considered as the defendant/appellant had not filed its written statement. Subsequently, along with the application seeking recall, the defendant/appellant also filed written statement along with an application for condonation of delay, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order itself, subject to payment of costs.

¶14

Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant submits that the costs have been paid and the written statement has been taken on record.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 20/04/2026 at 13:14:17

¶17

A perusal of the impugned order would reflect that, though it has condoned the delay and directed the written statement to be taken on record, it has, however, failed to consider the stand of the respondent, which has now come on record in the written statement.

¶18

In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the Trial Court to apply its mind afresh in light of the pleadings that have come on record.

¶19

Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant assures that he would not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the Trial Court

¶20

The present appeal is disposed of alongwith the pending application. DASTI , under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶21

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶22

APRIL 17, 2026 na

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 20/04/2026 at 13:14:17

Anshumman Joshi v. Gita Nakra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshumman Joshi v. Gita Nakra and Another

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

Bina Bahl Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Meena & Ors.

Umed Singh Vs Nirmala Devi & Anr.

Beena Rani & Ors. Vs Union of India

Smt Prabha Aggarwal Vs Shri Sanjeev Mathur

Anita Devi Vs Sh Rakesh Kumar