Partly allowed

Aditi v. Sonia Setia and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2024CR/3056/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified a lower court order allowing the recall of a defendant's defence. Upon the petitioner's limited prayer, the Court enhanced the costs against the defendant from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 20,000 for procedural defaults, directing payment to the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Costs against defendant No.1 enhanced from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 20,000; Rs. 15,000 paid to petitioner and balance Rs. 5,000 deposited with DLSA.

Aditi Vs Sonia Setia and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

107

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR No.3056 of 2024 Date of Decision: 18.05.2024

¶4

Aditi

¶5

.....Revisionist-Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sonia Setia and another

¶8

.....Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶10

¶11

Present:Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the revisionist-petitioner. (joined through Video-Conferencing)

¶12

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J . (Oral)

¶13

By filing the instant revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the plaintiff’) has assailed the order, handed down by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar (for short ‘the trial Court’) on 02.04.2024 in Civil Suit No.228 of 2020 titled as ‘ Aditi versus Sonia Setia and another ’, whereby the application moved by the respondent-defendant No.1 (here-in-after to be referred as ‘defendant No.1’) with the prayer to recall the order dated 13.05.2022, passed by the said Court qua striking-off her (defendant No.1’s) defence in the afore-said Suit, has been allowed.

¶14

However, it is pertinent to mention here that at the time of assisting the Court, at the preliminary stage, in the present revision-petition, learned counsel for the plaintiff has restricted his prayer to the modification

¶15

YAG DUTT 2024.06.06 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶16

CR No.3056 of 2024 -2-

¶17

of the impugned order, by way of enhancing the amount of cost as imposed upon defendant No.1.

¶18

Keeping in view the above-discussed limited prayer as made by learned counsel for the plaintiff and also the fact that defendant No.1 had failed to file her written-statement well in time and without issuing the notice to her (defendant No.1), so as to avoid any further delay in the adjudication of the afore-referred Suit and also to avert the expenses that she may have to incur to defend in this revision-petition, the impugned order is, hereby, modified only to the extent that the amount of cost, as imposed upon defendant No.1, is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.20,000/and out of this amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to the plaintiff and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited with the DLSA, SAS Nagar. The revision-petition in hand stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

It is further clarified here that in the eventuality of respondent-

¶20

defendant No.1 feeling aggrieved by this order, she shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application to contest the instant revision-petition.

¶21

May 18, 2024

¶22

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE

¶23

Yag Dutt

¶24

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No

¶25

YAG DUTT 2024.06.06 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Aditi v. Sonia Setia and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditi v. Sonia Setia and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mona & Anr. Vs Gurdev Kaur & Ors.

Amar Lal Babbar Vs Kishan Sihag

Raj Kumar Vs Rajnish Mittal

Siri Chand Gupta and Anr. Vs Banwari Lal Gupta and Others

Ashish Kumar Vs Kaushal Devi Alias Kushal Devi

Manoj Kumar Vs Ramesh