Delhi High Court
Ramin Kumar Mittal vs Brij Dwivedi on 19 July, 2024
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19th July, 2024
+ CM(M) 2945/2024 & CM APPL. 40103/2024
RAMIN KUMAR MITTAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu with Mr. Pankaj
Arora, Mr. Paras Maheshwari,
Mr. Kunal Dhawan, Mr. Rahul
Manik, Mr. Parkash Chand, Mr. Ankit
Panwar, Advocates.
versus
BRIJ DWIVEDI .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner, who is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, had
filed a suit which was summary in nature.
2. The defendant (respondent herein) put in appearance and when
the summons for judgment were taken out, the defendant submitted an
application seeking leave to defend, albeit, with a delay of 19 days.
3. The learned Trial Court considered the application moved by
the defendant whereby he had sought condonation of delay in filing
leave to defend.
4. Such delay of 19 days has been condoned by the learned Trial
Court.
5. Such order has been impugned by the petitioner/plaintiff.
6. According to the petitioner, the condonation had been sought
while citing medical exigency and along with the application, the
defendant had submitted two medical documents dated 18.08.2023
and 10.09.2023. Medical prescription dated 18.08.2023 indicates that
defendant was suffering from loose motion etc. As per the medical
certificate dated on 10.09.2023, it was certified that Mr. Brij Dwivedi
(defendant/respondent) was suffering from acute gastroenteritis and
swollen toe nail and was, accordingly, advised rest for two weeks.
7. It is contended that these certificates seem to have been
procured and moreover the kind of ailment mentioned therein is
general in nature which could have been cured by simple medication
and did not incapacitate the defendant to not submit the application
seeking leave within time. Therefore, relying on these medical
prescription, the learned Trial Court should not have condoned the
delay.
8. This Court is very much conscious of the fact that the present
petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
whereby the Court is required to exercise its supervisory powers. The
duty of the supervisory Court is to interdict if it was found that
findings were perverse i.e. (i) Erroneous on account of non-
consideration of material evidence, or (ii) Being conclusions which
are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) Based on inferences that are
impermissible in law. Reference be made to Puri Investments Versus
Young Friends and Co. and Others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283.
9. In the present case, while exercising its discretionary powers as
provided under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) CPC, the learned Trial
Court has chosen to exercise its discretion in favour of the defendant
and, thereby, the delay has been condoned.
10. Needless to emphasize, the endeavour of the Court should be to
decide the lis on merits instead of on technicalities and such provision
should be used in liberal manner, particularly, when it is found that
the conduct of the applicant does not suggest any malice or deliberate
inaction.
11. Moreover, when the learned Trial Court has chosen to condone
the delay, the supervisory Court should not disturb the finding merely
on the premise that discretion should not have been exercised in
favour of defendant.
12. Viewed thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned order in question.
13. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JULY 19, 2024
st
