Full Text
Translation output
$'-A-46 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.R.P. 180/2016 and CM Nos.41323-24/2016
ATITJAIN&ANR .....Petitioners
Through Mr.Prasouk Jain, Advocate,
C.R.P. 180/2016 and CM Nos.41323-24/2016
ATITJAIN&ANR .....Petitioners
Through Mr.Prasouk Jain, Advocate,
VERSUS
M/S RAJSHREE JEWELS «& ORS Respondents
Through ^ CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
14.12.2016 This matter is taken up today as 12.12.2016 was declared a holiday on account of 'Milad-Un-Nabi.
By the present petition filed under Section 115 CPC,the petitioners seek to impugn the order dated 30.07.2016. The reason ofthe petitioners is
, that he has filed the suit under Order 37 CPC and that the respondents p . entered appearance much after the stipulated period of 10 days. He submits that despite the delay,the trial court has ignored the same and permitted the respondents to enter appearance in violation ofprovisions ofOrder 37 CPC.
A perusal ofthe impugned order shows that the trial court has noted that the summons were served in the first week of April 2016 and some applications were filed on 18.04.2016 by the respondents. The applications were treated as having entered appearance.
In'my opinion, the delay is minimal. It would not be proper for this
2016:DHC:8782 court to interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial court as no grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner's.
The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
All pending application also stands dismissed.
JAYANT NATH,J DECEMBER 14,2016 rb 2016:DHC:8782
Through ^ CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
14.12.2016 This matter is taken up today as 12.12.2016 was declared a holiday on account of 'Milad-Un-Nabi.
By the present petition filed under Section 115 CPC,the petitioners seek to impugn the order dated 30.07.2016. The reason ofthe petitioners is
, that he has filed the suit under Order 37 CPC and that the respondents p . entered appearance much after the stipulated period of 10 days. He submits that despite the delay,the trial court has ignored the same and permitted the respondents to enter appearance in violation ofprovisions ofOrder 37 CPC.
A perusal ofthe impugned order shows that the trial court has noted that the summons were served in the first week of April 2016 and some applications were filed on 18.04.2016 by the respondents. The applications were treated as having entered appearance.
In'my opinion, the delay is minimal. It would not be proper for this
2016:DHC:8782 court to interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial court as no grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner's.
The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
All pending application also stands dismissed.
JAYANT NATH,J DECEMBER 14,2016 rb 2016:DHC:8782
JUDGMENT