Delhi High Court
Delhi Deveopment Authority vs Sunita Mehrota & Ors. on 14 August, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 69/2013 & CM No. 1010/2013 (stay)
% 14th August , 2014
DELHI DEVEOPMENT AUTHORITY ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate.
VERSUS
SUNITA MEHROTA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.C.Bajaj, Mr. D.R.Bhatia, Mr.
Himanshu Bajaj and Ms. Sandhya
Bajaj, Advocates for R-4.
Mr. G.D.Mishra, Adv. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the order of the trial court dated 3.8.2012 which has allowed the
application filed by the plaintiff no.4/respondentno.4 for setting aside the
earlier order of the trial court dated 1.2.2010 by which the written statement
filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1 was taken on record. Therefore, by the
impugned order the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1
was struck off the record.
CM(M) 69/2013 Page 1 of 3
2. The order dated 1.2.2010 reads as under:-
"Amended written statement on behalf of the DDA filed. Copy
supplied. MCD is given last opportunity to file written
statement with direction to supply advance copy to plaintiff.
Now to come up for replication/admission/denial of
documents/framing of issues for 05.03.10."
3. A reading of this order shows that there was no objection raised
by the plaintiff no.4/respondent no.4 to taking of the written statement on
record. Therefore, once no objection is taken as regards the filing and taking
on record the written statement thereafter on second thoughts an application
cannot be filed for setting aside of the order which allowed the written
statement to be taken on record and further directing filing of replication.
4. I may note that no doubt there has been delay of 11 months in
filing of the written statement by the DDA, however, it is now well settled
law that Code of Civil Produce, 1908 (CPC) is a handmaid of justice and
unless very grave prejudice is caused to the other side, and which prejudice
cannot be compensated by costs, appropriate orders can be passed to allow a
party to rectify the mistake. In the present case, I note that the written
statement which has been filed pursuant to the order dated 1.2.2010 is only
the amended written statement and the original written statement of the
petitioner/defendant no.1/DDA is already on record and which is another
reason why the impugned order of the trial court dated 3.8.2012 is
CM(M) 69/2013 Page 2 of 3
unjustified in that it directed recalling of the order dated 1.2.2010.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order of the trial court dated
3.8.2010 is set aside. The order dated 1.2.2010 will stand restored. For the
delay in filing of the amended written statement by the petitioner/defendant
no.1, it will be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs to the plaintiff
no.4/respondent no.4, and which costs shall be paid before the trial court on
the next date of hearing.
6. Petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
AUGUST 14, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
