Full Text
Translation output
$-2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 11/2015
DEEPAK
KAVITA
Appellant
Through Mr. RajeshGupta, Advocate
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 11/2015
DEEPAK
KAVITA
Appellant
Through Mr. RajeshGupta, Advocate
VERSUS
Respondent
Through Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Advocate
Through Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LS.MEHTA
11.03.2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LS.MEHTA
11.03.2015
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 11/2015. CM Nos. 2138/2015,2139/2015 and 3900/2015
After some arguments, learned counsel for the respondent who is vehemently opposing the present petition, submits that exemplary costs shall be imposed upon the appellant for his reckless conduct in causing delay in the matter.
The appellant has preferred the present appeal to challenge the order dated 30^*^ September, 2014 passed by the learned Family Court whereby the application moved by the appellant herein under Order VIII, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.
The appellant was earlier proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16"^
November, 2013 and the said order was set aside by the learned trial Court on the filing of an application by the appellant but even after the setting aside of the ex parte orders, the appellant did not chose to file his written
2015:DHC:11672-DB statement within the stipulated period ofthirty days.
Upon failure of the appellant to have filed his written statement, the learned trial Court on 21'' August, 2014 closed the right ofthe appellant to file his written statement.
It is thereafter, the application under Order VIII, Rule 1 read with
Section 151 of CPC was preferred by the respondent for recalling of the order dated 21 August, 2014.
In the background of the aforesaid facts, it is quite apparent that the appellant failed to file his written statement despite grant of several opportunities and in the meanwhile, the matter has reached the evidence stage and the learned trial Court has already recorded evidence of four witnesses.
It was imperative on the part of the appellant to file his written statement withinthe time specified under OrderVIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. from the date of service of summons on him. He not only failed to file his written statement but also failed to appear in the matter, which resulted into ex- parte proceedings against him. Despite setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, the appellant didnotcome forward to file his written statement.
The conduct ofthe appellant is thus highly reckless.
In view of the above, we impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- upon the appellant for setting aside the order dated 30^^ September, 2014. The same shall be deposited by the appellant to the respondent by means of a demand draft within a period of one week failing which the order dated 30'^^
September, 2014 shall automatically be recalled.
A last and final opportunity is granted to the appellant to file his written statement within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.
We direct the trial Court to make every endeavour to expedite the trial ofthe matter and decide the matter itself within a period of six months from the date ofthis order.
A fresh opportunity is provided to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesseswhose evidencehas already been examined.
The present appeal and the applications stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
MARCH 11, 2015 sd KAILASH GAMBHIR, 1 [TA,J
After some arguments, learned counsel for the respondent who is vehemently opposing the present petition, submits that exemplary costs shall be imposed upon the appellant for his reckless conduct in causing delay in the matter.
The appellant has preferred the present appeal to challenge the order dated 30^*^ September, 2014 passed by the learned Family Court whereby the application moved by the appellant herein under Order VIII, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.
The appellant was earlier proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16"^
November, 2013 and the said order was set aside by the learned trial Court on the filing of an application by the appellant but even after the setting aside of the ex parte orders, the appellant did not chose to file his written
2015:DHC:11672-DB statement within the stipulated period ofthirty days.
Upon failure of the appellant to have filed his written statement, the learned trial Court on 21'' August, 2014 closed the right ofthe appellant to file his written statement.
It is thereafter, the application under Order VIII, Rule 1 read with
Section 151 of CPC was preferred by the respondent for recalling of the order dated 21 August, 2014.
In the background of the aforesaid facts, it is quite apparent that the appellant failed to file his written statement despite grant of several opportunities and in the meanwhile, the matter has reached the evidence stage and the learned trial Court has already recorded evidence of four witnesses.
It was imperative on the part of the appellant to file his written statement withinthe time specified under OrderVIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. from the date of service of summons on him. He not only failed to file his written statement but also failed to appear in the matter, which resulted into ex- parte proceedings against him. Despite setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, the appellant didnotcome forward to file his written statement.
The conduct ofthe appellant is thus highly reckless.
In view of the above, we impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- upon the appellant for setting aside the order dated 30^^ September, 2014. The same shall be deposited by the appellant to the respondent by means of a demand draft within a period of one week failing which the order dated 30'^^
September, 2014 shall automatically be recalled.
A last and final opportunity is granted to the appellant to file his written statement within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.
We direct the trial Court to make every endeavour to expedite the trial ofthe matter and decide the matter itself within a period of six months from the date ofthis order.
A fresh opportunity is provided to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesseswhose evidencehas already been examined.
The present appeal and the applications stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
MARCH 11, 2015 sd KAILASH GAMBHIR, 1 [TA,J
JUDGMENT