Smt Krishna Manchanda vs Smt Sunit Mohan
2014 Latest Caselaw 6739 Del

*            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

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