Full Text
Translation output
$-44 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRP No. 20/2016 KHURSHIDA BEGUM AND ORS. Petitioners
Through Mr. Banamali Shukla, Advocate
Through Mr. Banamali Shukla, Advocate
VERSUS
MUSHTAQ AHMAD & ORS Respondents
Through Nemo.
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
03.02.2016 C.M. No.4077/2016 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.
CRP No. 20/2016. C.M. No.4076/2016 & C.M. No.4078/2016
Counsel for the petitioners is aggrieved by the order dated
19.10.2015 vide which his application seeking amendment of his application filed by him seeking leave to defend had been dismissed.
The Court was of the view that the application seeking amendment in the application seeking leave to defend was filed after 15 days which was the mandatory period for filing an application seeking leave to defend. On this ground, the application was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is only a typographical error in the application seeking leave defend as
2016:DHC:8771 I'. t? inadvertentlywhile he was giving dictation to his steno had dictatedthe suit property asresidential whereas it isactually a commercial property.
This being a typographical error, the petitioner is granted permission to move an appropriate application under Sections 151 and 152 of the
CPC and the Trial Court shall dispose ofit in accordance with law.
Petition as also pending applications dispose^ of in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 03,2016 ndn 2016:DHC:8771
03.02.2016 C.M. No.4077/2016 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.
CRP No. 20/2016. C.M. No.4076/2016 & C.M. No.4078/2016
Counsel for the petitioners is aggrieved by the order dated
19.10.2015 vide which his application seeking amendment of his application filed by him seeking leave to defend had been dismissed.
The Court was of the view that the application seeking amendment in the application seeking leave to defend was filed after 15 days which was the mandatory period for filing an application seeking leave to defend. On this ground, the application was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is only a typographical error in the application seeking leave defend as
2016:DHC:8771 I'. t? inadvertentlywhile he was giving dictation to his steno had dictatedthe suit property asresidential whereas it isactually a commercial property.
This being a typographical error, the petitioner is granted permission to move an appropriate application under Sections 151 and 152 of the
CPC and the Trial Court shall dispose ofit in accordance with law.
Petition as also pending applications dispose^ of in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 03,2016 ndn 2016:DHC:8771
JUDGMENT