Netra Prakash Sharma vs Rakesh Dhawan
2014 Latest Caselaw 3131 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                 RC.Rev. 134/2014 & conn

%                                                  16th July, 2014

+     RC.REV. 134/2014

NETRA PRAKASH SHARMA                              ..... Petitioner

                         Through:     Mr. Saurabh Jhamb and Ms. Jasmine,
                                      Advocates.

                         versus

RAKESH DHAWAN                                             ..... Respondent

                         Through:     Mr. R.C.Pathak and Mr. Ratneshwar
                                      Kumar, Advocate.

+     RC.REV. 135/2014

SHAM SUNDER                                               ..... Petitioner

                         Through:     Mr. Saurabh Jhamb and Ms. Jasmine,
                                      Advocates.

                         versus

RAKESH DHAWAN                                             ..... Respondent

                         Through:     Mr. R.C.Pathak and Mr. Ratneshwar
                                      Kumar, Advocate.

+     RC.REV. 136/2014

NETRA PRAKASH SHARMA                              ..... Petitioner

                         Through:     Mr. Saurabh Jhamb and Ms. Jasmine,
                                      Advocates.

                         versus

RC.Rev. 134/2014&conn                                                        Page 1 of 3
 RAKESH DHAWAN                                              ..... Respondent

                          Through:       Mr. R.C.Pathak and Mr. Ratneshwar
                                         Kumar, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    The impugned judgments dismissed the leave to defend applications

both on the ground of limitation as also on merits.


2.    The Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh

(dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that the statutory period of 15

days for filing of the leave to defend application is sacrosanct and courts

cannot condone delay even of one day in filing of the leave to defend

application. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the procedure which

is specified under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is an

exhaustive procedure and no other provision including Section 5 of the

Limitation Act,1963 or any other provision of CPC in view of Rule 23 can

be added to the procedure of Section 25-B.

RC.Rev. 134/2014&conn                                                         Page 2 of 3
 3.           In the present cases, in one case leave to defend is delayed by

one day and in other two cases by three days. Therefore, there is delay and

the delay whether it be of one day or of three days cannot be condoned there

is no need to discuss the merits of the matter.


4.    I may state that counsel for the respondent states that petitioner are

letting out electricity to weekly market and earning thousands per month,

however, I would not like to comment one way or the other because I am

dismissing the petitions.

5.    In view of the above, the petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to

bear their own costs.




JULY 16, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib