Delhi High Court
Smt. Harsha Soni vs Shri Suraj Bhan on 15 December, 2022
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005653
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.12.2022
+ CM(M) 1279/2022 and CM No.50567/2022
SMT. HARSHA SONI ..... Petitioner
versus
SHRI SURAJ BHAN ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Drall, Mr. Sonu Kirar,
Mr. Rachit Khandelwal and Mr. Rohan
Agarwal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken
up for hearing today.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that
the Petitioner was never served with the summons of the suit in the year
2017. In the meanwhile, Trial Court vide order dated 06.07.2017 had
proceeded the Petitioner exparte.
3. Learned counsel submits that it was only during the first week of
January, 2022 that she was informed about the pendency of the suit by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
13:41:12
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005653
Defendant No.2 and after certain enquiries and inspecting the file, the
Petitioner came to know that she was proceeded exparte as far back as on
06.07.2017.
4. Without wasting any time, Petitioner had approached the learned
Trial Court with an application under Section 151 CPC seeking setting
aside of the exparte order alongwith written statement and reply to
application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as filed by the
Respondent.
5. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court did not
consider the explanation tendered by the Petitioner in the application
under Section 151 CPC and dismissed the same vide the impugned order.
6. It is trite that the contents of the application would be the
determining factors to adjudicate in a Court of law rather than the
provision or nomenclature under which the relief is sought in that
application.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents fairly
agrees, in the interest of justice, that the impugned order be set aside and
the written statement along with reply to the application under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 CPC is taken on record. However, the Petitioner may be
subjected to heavy costs for the delay.
8. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the opinion that
interest of justice would be sub-served as also for the reason that the
disputes should be adjudicated on merits rather than on technicalities, the
impugned order be set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
13:41:12
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005653
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 22.08.2022 as well as order
dated 06.07.2017 whereby the Petitioner was proceeded exparte are
quashed and set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid
to the Respondent on or before 19.12.2022.
10. In view of the fact that the impugned orders have been quashed,
learned Trial Court is directed to take the written statement and reply to
the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioner
on record. Replication and rejoinder respectively, if any, be filed within
the time to be granted by the Trial Court on 19.12.2022, the date already
fixed before it.
11. With these directions, petition and the application filed herewith are
disposed of.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DECEMBER 15, 2022/yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
13:41:12
