Delhi High Court
Ritu Chadha vs Ankur Chadha on 17 March, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 361/2010 & CM Nos.4862-63/2010
Date of Decision: 17th March, 2010
RITU CHADHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Maninder Jeet Singh,
Advocate.
versus
ANKUR CHADHA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)
CM No.4863/2010 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 361/2010
1. Petitioner has filed a petition under Sections 12 and 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as „H.M.Act‟)
against the respondent. Respondent was required to file written
statement within the stipulated period. He filed written statement
after the expiry of period of limitation as prescribed under Order VIII
Rule 1 CPC along with an application seeking condonation of delay
in filing the written statement as well as for waiver of cost imposed
upon him vide order dated 24 th January, 2009. The said application
was duly contested by the petitioner. Trial Court vide order dated
16th November, 2009 directed the respondent to file a detailed
medical certificate from the concerned doctor at RML Hospital
regarding his ailment which prevented him from filing written
statement within the period of limitation. Since respondent failed to
file the detailed medical certificate as required and absented himself
on 8th December 2009, Court struck off the written statement placed
on record and proceeded ex parte against the respondent.
2. An application was filed by the respondent under
Section 151 CPC for recalling of the order dated 8 th December 2009,
which was allowed by the Trial Court on 4 th March, 2010. Impugned
in this petition is the said order of the Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
order of the Trial Court suffers from infirmities and illegalities as
respondent had failed to comply with order of the Court dated 16 th
November, 2009 and no medical certificate was filed at all and
respondent had also failed to make any sufficient ground for not
having filed his written statement within the period granted by the
Trial Court. Trial Court simply allowed the application of the
respondent without looking into the conduct of the respondent and
without considering its previous orders, unmindful of the fact that
written statement, which was struck out from the record, could not be
taken on record without respondent having satisfied the Court the
reasons for delay in filing the written statement.
4. Trial Court did note the submissions of counsel for the
petitioner which were made before it during the course of arguments
on application filed under Section 151 CPC but in the interest of
justice proceeded to allow the application. The relevant portion of
the order reads as follows:-
" Without going into the detailed
discussion on the merits of the application, the
order dated 08.12.2009 is recalled only in the
interest of justice, subject to payment of cost of
Rs.5000/- by respondent is disposed off.
The written statement filed by the
respondent on 24.10.2009 is taken on record
and order of which he was proceeded exparte is
also set aside. Be listed for filing of replication,
documents, admission, denial and for framing
of issues on 14.04.2009."
5. Thus, it is clear that court exercised its inherent
jurisdiction while allowing this application. No prejudice was
caused to the petitioner when written statement filed by the
respondent was taken on record. Since the petition before the Trial
Court is for dissolution of marriage on grounds specified in the
petition, to my mind, Trial Court was right in allowing this
application in the interest of justice so as to afford full opportunity to
both the parties to submit their case and enable the Court to reach to
a fair and proper conclusion.
6. In 'R.N. Jadi & Brothers Vs. V. Subhashchandra',
AIR 2007 SC 2571, principles underlying Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
were construed and it was observed that the object of the substituted
Order VIII, Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous
defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases
causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and petitioners approaching
the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience the
court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to
expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice
delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some
cases amount to justice buried. Similar were the observations in
'Kailash Vs. Nanhku', AIR 2005 SC 2441.
7. Hence, I find no merits in the petition. The same is
accordingly dismissed.
CM No.4862/2010 (for stay)
8. Since petition has been dismissed, this application has
become infructuous. It is accordingly disposed of.
ARUNA SURESH
(JUDGE)
MARCH 17, 2010
sb
