Neelam v. Ram Dass Sagar

Delhi High Court · 15 Jan 2020 · 2020:DHC:3963
Prathiba M. Singh
CM(M)722/2018 & CM APPL.25894/2018
2020:DHC:3963
civil appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner’s delayed written statement to be taken on record due to justified delay caused by travel and lawyers' strike, setting aside the order closing the right to file it.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)722/2018& CM APPL.25894/2018
NEELAM Petitioner
Through: Ms. Suganadha Anand and Mr. Surinder Anand, Advocates.
(M:9818620297)
VERSUS
RAM DASS SAGAR Respondent
Through: Mr. Anand Prakash, Advocate.
(M:9891465976)
WITH
/+ CONT.CAS(C)68/2019 NEELAM Petitioner
Through: Ms. Suganadha Anand and Mr. Surinder Anand,Advocates.
VERSUS
RAM DASS SAGAR & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr.Anand Prakash,Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M.SINGH
15.01.2020
CM(M)722/2018 & CM APPL.25894/2018
ORDER

1. The Petitioner/Defendant (hereinafter 'Defendant') is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8^*^ June,2018 by which the Defendant's right to file the written statement had been closed. The contention ofthe Defendant is thatthe summons was served on the Defendant only on 4"^ May,2018 and the Defendant was travelling abroad. She returned on May,2018 and gotthe written statement prepared on 7^^ June,2018.Her lawyer reached the Court on 8'*^ June,2018 but lawyers were on strike and he could enter the premises only around noon. By that time, the impugned order was passed 2020:DHC:3963 and the rightto file the written statement was closed.

2. Ld. counsel for the Respondent submits that after the summons were served on 4"^ May,2018,as perthe Defendant herself- she leftIndia only on 19^*^ May,2018,thus she had enough time to prepare the written statement.

3. A perusal ofthe record shows that the summons itself permitted the written statement to be filed within four weeks. The time provided by CPC for filing the written statement is 30 days. Copy of the written statement which is stated to be prepared has been placed on record and the same shows that it was attested on June,2018.Even ifthe period from 4^*^ May,2018 is calculated until June,2018 only a period of33 days has elapsed. Thus, this is a fit case for allowing the written statementto be taken on record.

4. Moreover,in this case on both dates i.e, 9^*^ May,2018 as well as 8^*^ June, 2018 admittedly lawyers were on strike. In the overall facts and circumstances, it is directed that the written statement shall be taken on record. The suitshall now proceed further in accordance with law.

5. With these observations the petition and all pending applications are disposed of. CONT.CASICJ 68/2019

6. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that he seeks permission to withdraw the contempt petition with liberty to avail of his liberties before the Id. Trial Court.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

PRATHIBA M.SINGH,J. JANUARY 15,2020 dj