Full Text
Translation output
$-12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 244/2013 & CM No. 7719/2013
SHRI BALWANT SINGH & ANR Appellants
Through: Mr Puneet Agrawal, Advocate
FAO(OS) 244/2013 & CM No. 7719/2013
SHRI BALWANT SINGH & ANR Appellants
Through: Mr Puneet Agrawal, Advocate
VERSUS
JASPAL SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr M.G. Vacher, Advocate
Through: Mr M.G. Vacher, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
01.10.2013 This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2013 passed in CS(OS) No. 3261/2011, vv^hereby a learned Single Judge of this court closed the right of the defendants / appellants to file their written statement. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in paragraph 1 ofthe order it is mentioned that time was sought by the learned counsel for the defendants on 11,09.2012 to file a written statement along with an application for condonation of delay but the same had not been done till the date of the impugned order.
The learned counsel for the appellants / defendants pointed outthat, in fact, there was a change of counsel as a result of which the statement was made on 11.09.2012 being oblivious of the fact thatthe previous counsel had already filed thewritten statement on 06.07.2012 and the same was lying under objections. The fact that the written statement had been filed on 06.07.2012 and the same was lyingunder objections
2013:DHC:7339-DB is not denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents / plaintiffs.
In these circumstances, we feel that it is appropriate for us to set aside the order dated 15.02.2013 and to direct the appellants to re- file the written statement within a week after removing the objections.
The said written statement, ifso filed, would be taken on record. This , order is, however, subject to the appellants paying cost of Rs 20,000/- to the respondents within a week. The amount ofRs 10,000/- already deposited by the appellant with the Registrar is also permitted to be withdrawn by the learned counsel for the respondents.
The appealstandsallowedas above.
OCTOBER 01,2013 su VDAR DU BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J 2013:DHC:7339-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
01.10.2013 This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2013 passed in CS(OS) No. 3261/2011, vv^hereby a learned Single Judge of this court closed the right of the defendants / appellants to file their written statement. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in paragraph 1 ofthe order it is mentioned that time was sought by the learned counsel for the defendants on 11,09.2012 to file a written statement along with an application for condonation of delay but the same had not been done till the date of the impugned order.
The learned counsel for the appellants / defendants pointed outthat, in fact, there was a change of counsel as a result of which the statement was made on 11.09.2012 being oblivious of the fact thatthe previous counsel had already filed thewritten statement on 06.07.2012 and the same was lying under objections. The fact that the written statement had been filed on 06.07.2012 and the same was lyingunder objections
2013:DHC:7339-DB is not denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents / plaintiffs.
In these circumstances, we feel that it is appropriate for us to set aside the order dated 15.02.2013 and to direct the appellants to re- file the written statement within a week after removing the objections.
The said written statement, ifso filed, would be taken on record. This , order is, however, subject to the appellants paying cost of Rs 20,000/- to the respondents within a week. The amount ofRs 10,000/- already deposited by the appellant with the Registrar is also permitted to be withdrawn by the learned counsel for the respondents.
The appealstandsallowedas above.
OCTOBER 01,2013 su VDAR DU BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J 2013:DHC:7339-DB
JUDGMENT