Smt Krishna Manchanda vs Smt Sunit Mohan

Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 6739 Del
Judgement Date : 12 December, 2014

Delhi High Court
Smt Krishna Manchanda vs Smt Sunit Mohan on 12 December, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CM No.20148/2014 (to file amended undertaking) in
             RC.REV.376/2013 & CM No.20149/2014 (Exemption)

%                                                     12th December, 2014

SMT KRISHNA MANCHANDA
                                                               ..... Petitioner
                          Through Ms. Mithila Sharma, Adv.

                          versus

SMT SUNIT MOHAN
                                                             ..... Respondent

Through CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Ordinarily Courts are lenient in accepting undertakings given by litigants by extending the time for filing the same, however, the facts of this case do not persuade me to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioner. The reasons are stated hereinafter.

2. In this petition the petitioner was heard in detail on 25.7.2014 and at that stage of dismissal of the petition by passing a judgment, the petitioner instead agreed to take a time period of two years to vacate the premises and had to accordingly file an undertaking on or before 10.8.2014. Today we RC.Rev.No.376/2013 Page 1 of 2 are at 12.12.2014 i.e. over four months after the order dated 25.7.2014 was passed.

3. In spite of the fact that the order dated 25.7.2014 was a consent order, petitioner challenged the same in the Supreme Court by filing an SLP which was dismissed but petitioner was given two weeks time by the Supreme Court to file the undertaking.

4. Petitioner did not file an unconditional undertaking, and instead filed a conditional undertaking. Accordingly, the conditional undertaking was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2014.

5. Today this application is filed stating that petitioner did not intend to file a conditional undertaking, however, on a query to the counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is conceded that no affidavit has been filed by the earlier counsel that he filed a conditional undertaking by mistake and he was not told to do so by the petitioner herself.

6. In view of the above, since courts of law cannot be utilized to over- reach the process of law, hence in this particular case, I refuse to extend the time to file an undertaking.

7. Dismissed.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J DECEMBER 12, 2014 vld RC.Rev.No.376/2013 Page 2 of 2