Delhi High Court
Sh Manpreet Singh @Shantu vs Sh Gurucharan Singh & Ors. on 31 March, 2022
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 295/2022 & CM APPL. 16071/2022
SH MANPREET SINGH @SHANTU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Virendra Kumar Rawat, Adv.
versus
SH GURUCHARAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 31.03.2022
1. The petitioner has filed an application before the learned
Additional District Judge (ADJ) under Section 152 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for correction of the
name of the petitioner in judgment and decree dated 6th February,
2020.
2. The said application came up before the learned ADJ on 21st
September, 2021, on which date the learned ADJ expressed doubts as
to how the correction, as prayed, could be granted under Sections 152
and 151 CPC.
3. In order for the petitioner to convince the learned ADJ on the
aspect, the matter was re-notified on 21st October, 2021.
4. The order sheet dated 21st October, 2021 records that there was
no appearance on behalf of the parties on the said date. Accordingly,
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:31.03.2022
16:17:25
the application was dismissed and the file was directed to be
consigned to record room.
5. The petitioner in this petition avers that the petitioner was
represented by a "proxy Counsel", and that a request was made to the
learned ADJ for an accommodation, which was not acceded to.
6. There is no mention, in the impugned order, of any Counsel
having appeared or of any such request having been made, though Mr.
Virender Kumar Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the present petition is accompanied by an affidavit containing a
verification regarding the proof of its contents, it is not possible for
this Court to accede such a statement, even if accompanied by an
affidavit, in preference to the record of the court below, which clearly
states that there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
7. The court is hesitant to believe that, even if the Counsel had
appeared and sought an adjournment, which was refused, the learned
ADJ would not have so recorded in the order.
8. Without entering into the said controversy, as the petitioner's
application was rejected on the ground of non-appearance, I deem it
appropriate, instead of keeping this petition pending, to dispose of the
petition with a direction to the learned ADJ to allow the petitioner an
opportunity to argue on his application under Section 152 read with
Section 151 CPC and satisfy the learned ADJ regarding the queries
raised by him in the order dated 21st September, 2021.
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:31.03.2022
16:17:25
9. This shall, however, be subject to the petitioner paying costs of
₹ 5,000/- by way of a crossed Cheque/Demand Draft favouring the
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within a
period of one week from today. On proof of payment of such costs,
the petitioner may appear before the learned ADJ on 11th April, 2022
at 10:30 a.m.
10. The learned ADJ would take up the matter on the said date and
consider the petitioner's application on merits, as per his board and his
convenience.
11. It is reiterated that the matter would be heard only subject to the
petitioner furnishing proof of payment of costs as directed
hereinabove.
12. This Court has not, therefore, entered any observation regarding
the legitimacy or merits of the petitioner's requests or whether they
could be granted by the learned ADJ. The issue shall remain open to
be decided by the learned ADJ in accordance with law.
13. This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no
orders as to costs.
14. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
MARCH 31, 2022/dsn
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:31.03.2022
16:17:25
