Delhi High Court
Prem Chand Khemka vs Sushma Khemka on 27 November, 2017
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th November, 2017
+ CM(M) 1177/2017 and CM No.38092/2017 (stay)
PREM CHAND KHEMKA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Adv. with
Mr. Bikram Singh & Mr. Dhruv Bose,
Advocates
versus
SUSHMA KHEMKA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is the defendant in Civil Suit (CS No.59130/2016)
instituted by the respondent against him seeking recovery of Rs.17,18,155/-.
Concededly, the summons of the suit were served and the petitioner
appeared before the court of Additional District Judge on 19.12.2015.
Admittedly, pleadings in the nature of written statement came on record on
01.03.2016. Though at one stage, the respondent (plaintiff of the suit) had
also taken the position that the filing of the written statement was belated
and unauthorized, there being no prayer made for enlargement of the time
for such purpose, the matter stood resolved by the order dated 15.07.2017,
which is impugned by the petition at hand, to the effect that the delay is to
be condoned as the document (pleadings) were accepted by the trial Judge.
The respondent, however, took objection to the said pleadings on the ground
that the same had neither been signed nor verified by the petitioner
(defendant), nor the person signing (Puneet Khemka) such pleadings had
been duly authorized to take such steps. Reliance was placed by the
petitioner on the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed on 29.04.2015,
it being noted that the suit was filed subsequently on 22.05.2015. The
petitioners tried to meet the said objection by executing another SPA dated
02.05.2017. He (defendant) also sought to rectify the deficiency and error in
the pleadings by submitting a copy of the said Power of Attorney along with
the verification clause of the written statement and an affidavit, which he
requested to be taken on record and treated as part of the written statement
filed.
2. The learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order dated
15.07.2017, however, upheld the objections of the respondent/plaintiff and
directed that the written statement referred to above would be treated as
"rejected" and consequently struck off the defence of the petitioner, taking
the case to the stage of the plaintiff's evidence.
3. After some hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly
conceded that on suitable terms, the petitioner may be allowed to file a
proper written statement, duly signed and verified by him or by his duly
constituted attorney, in such event with appropriate averments in such
regard.
4. Having regard to the delay which has occasioned on account of
improper pleadings being submitted, and the manner in which the
deficiencies were sought to be rectified, leading to protracted proceedings
before the trial court, the petition is allowed and the impugned order striking
off the defence of the petitioner is set aside, on costs of Rs.25,000/-, subject
to further condition that the petitioner shall be obliged to submit appropriate
pleadings (written statement) before the trial court in above light, on or
before 13th December, 2017, which date is already fixed before the trial
court.
5. The petition and accompanying application stand disposed of with
these directions.
6. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 27, 2017
vk
