Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... vs Dr Shambhuji & Ors on 11 January, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000248
$~1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.01.2023
+ CM(M) 1522/2018 and CM 52071/2018 and 53329/2022
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
& ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
DR SHAMBHUJI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ CM(M) 1529/2018 and CM Nos.52241/2018 and 53538/2022
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
& ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
DR SHAMBHUJI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Madhu Tewatia and Mr. Adhirath Singh,
Advocates
For the Respondent : Respondent No.1 in person
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 parties, present petition is taken up for
disposal today.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:13.01.2023 CM(M) 1522/2018 & 1529/2018 1
16:51:01
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000248
2. Petitioner challenges the order dated 13.11.2018 of the learned
Trial Court whereby the written statements filed by Petitioner Nos.1 to 4
who are Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 (before the learned Trial Court) in
CM (M) No.1522/2018 and Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7 (before the
learned Trial Court) in CM(M) 1529/2018 were rejected and not
permitted to be taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Trial Court
refused it on the ground that there was a delay of almost 4 years in filing
of the written statement and thus, there was no reason for it to condone
the delay and therefore, rejected the request and denied the permission
to take on record the written statement.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners
had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which was taken up right uptil the Supreme
Court and time was spent in pursing the legal remedies available to it.
She further submits that availment of legal remedies in respect of the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC ought not to have been
counted towards delay in filing the written statement.
5. Respondent No.1, who appears in person, submits that mere filing
of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not act like a carte
blanche for the Petitioner to not have filed their written statement for
which specific time is prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code. Be that as
it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that lis ought to be
decided on merits. Precious time of the parties and the Courts are wasted
on such avoidable proceedings. Moreover, in the present case,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:13.01.2023 CM(M) 1522/2018 & 1529/2018 2
16:51:01
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000248
Respondent in person, also does not seriously object if one chance is
given to the Petitioners.
6. Therefore, both the parties have consented that written statements
be directed to be taken on record subject to imposition of reasonable
costs imposed upon the Petitioners.
7. Accordingly, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs by each
of the Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 to the Respondent, within two weeks
from today, the Trial Court shall take the written statements on record in
respect of both the suits, viz. CS No. 59836 of 2016 and CS No. 59837 of
2016 and proceed in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the petitions and the applications
filed herewith are disposed of.
9. The date of 08.08.2023 already fixed in CM(M) 1529/2018 stands
cancelled.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J .
JANUARY 11, 2023
yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:13.01.2023 CM(M) 1522/2018 & 1529/2018 3
16:51:01
