Delhi High Court
Mithlesh Sharma vs Aman Gupta on 18 August, 2022
$~71(Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 814/2022 & CM APPL.35691/2022, CM
APPL.35692/2022, CM APPL. 35693/2022
MITHLESH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Adv.
versus
AMAN GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Anil Sharma, Mr.Sachet
Sharma and Mr.Sahil Batar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T(O R A L)
% 18.08.2022
1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
challenges an order dated 13th July, 2022, passed by the learned Civil
Judge in Civil Suit 1059/19 (Aman Gupta v. Mithlesh Sharma)
whereby costs of ₹ 25,000/-, imposed by the learned Civil Judge vide
order dated 19th April, 2022 were reduced to ₹ 15,000/-. By the
present petition, the petitioner seeks waiver of the costs of ₹ 15,000/-
or further reduction thereof.
2. The costs of ₹ 25,000/- were imposed, by the order dated 19th
April, 2022 for condoning the delay in filing written statement in
response to the suit instituted by the respondent.
3. Mr Rishabh Kapur, learned Counsel for the petitioner candidly
acknowledges that the normal time provided in Order VIII Rule 1 of
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:22.08.2022
15:21:41
the CPC for filing written statement expired prior to 15 th March 2020
and that, therefore, the petitioner may not be able to obtain any benefit
from the judgment of the Supreme Court in In re. Cognizance for
Extension of Limitation1, in view of the subsequent decision in
Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt Ltd2, which
excludes, from the ambit of the benefit extended by In re. Cognizance
for Extension of Limitation1, cases in which the normal period of
limitation had expired prior to 15th March 2020 and the period upto
which delay could be condoned expired thereafter.
4. Mr Kapur submits, nonetheless, that the petitioner is a lady of
advanced age, who is in straitened financial circumstances and that
she would be seriously prejudiced if she were required to deposit the
aforesaid costs.
5. While the Court sympathises with the plight of the petitioner,
sympathy alone cannot constitute a basis for interference with the
orders passed by the Trial Court, in exercise of jurisdiction vested in
this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Clearly, there is
no erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Civil Judge, as
would justify this Court stepping in and interfering with the exercise
of discretion by her.
6. No case is, therefore, made out for the Court to interfere with
the impugned order.
Suo Motu WP 3/2020
(2021) 2 SCC 317
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:22.08.2022
15:21:41
7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications
also do not survive for consideration and are disposed of as such.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
AUGUST 18, 2022/kr
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:22.08.2022
15:21:41
