Delhi High Court
Nasreen Simon vs Ghulam Rasool Simon on 8 July, 2013
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON: 08th July, 2013
+ FAO(OS) 231/2013
NASREEN SIMON ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Priyanka Kathuria for Mr. Mohit
Goel, Advocate.
versus
GHULAM RASOOL SIMON ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Akash Bhalla, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
% MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
1. Mr. Akash Bhalla, Advocate for respondent sought time stating that
main counsel instructed him to appear in the matter, who is not available
though he was present during the first call. On the other hand, proxy
counsel for appellant Ms. Priyanka Kathuria stated that counsel for the
appellant Mr. Mohit Goel is not available.
2. The Court had issued emergent notice having regard to the nature of
the impugned order and it is pursuant to the notice that the respondent is
represented.
3. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 20.2.2012 whereby the respondent/defendant's right to file
written statement is foreclosed. The respondent is the defendant in the suit
and also the daughter-in-law of the appellant. The appellant has claimed a
decree for possession.
4. In support of the application for condoning the delay of 149 days and
enlargement of time in filing the written statement the respondent i.e.
appellant/defendant had urged that considerable time has been spent for
attempting a settlement and during the period, a written statement had been
FAO(OS) 231/2013 Page 1
filed on 15.5.2012 alongwith an application for condonation of delay,
numbered IA No. 9960/2012. The impugned order notices that on
17.2.2012, the parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre for possible settlement. Perhaps the Court was
prompted in doing so having regard to the relationship of the parties.
Nevertheless no settlement could be arrived at -- as is evident from the order
dated 19.8.2012. It was under these circumstances, the defendant
approached the Court for seeking condonation of delay and further extension
of time to file the written statement which was declined by the impugned
order.
5. This Court had carefully considered the pleadings. Having regard to
the peculiar circumstances of the case which include the relationship of the
parties, we are of the opinion that since an attempt to settle the dispute was
made - the learned Single Judge should have exercised discretion and
extended the time in the peculiar circumstances but of course subject to
conditions. Having regard to this fact, the Court is of the opinion that the
appellant's request for extension of time has to be considered favourably.
Accordingly, the appellant is at liberty to file the written statement within
ten days from today subject to her paying the respondent Rs. 15,000/- as
costs. The said costs shall be paid within four weeks from today.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
(JUDGE)
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
(JUDGE)
JULY 8, 2013/mv
FAO(OS) 231/2013 Page 2
