Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Kamlesh Gupta vs Vakeel Ahmad on 15 December, 2021

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                                                          Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
                                                          JOSHI
                                                          Signing Date:17.12.2021 13:23:15


$~2
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                  C.R.P. 200/2019 & CM APPL. 40486/2019
      KAMLESH GUPTA                                        ..... Petitioner
                  Through:             Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Jasleen Kaur,
                                       Mr. Pratyush Rao, Mr. Snehal Singh
                                       and Ms. Namrata Tripathi, Advocates
                          versus

      VAKEEL AHMAD                                       ..... Respondent
                  Through:             Mr. Sher Afgon, Advocate
                                       (M: 9811650754)
      CORAM:
      JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
               ORDER

% 15.12.2021

1. This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20 th August, 2019 passed by the Ld. ADJ-07 (South East), Saket, Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") in CS No.518/2016 titled Vakeel Ahmad v. Kamlesh Kumar. By the impugned order, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Petitioner/Defendant (hereinafter "Defendant"), seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, was dismissed by the Trial Court. It is the case of the Defendant that the suit was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), without payment of any court fee, and the court fee came to be filed eight months after the period of limitation had expired.

3. Passover is sought on behalf of the Defendant on the ground that the main counsel is held up in the District Court.

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.12.2021 13:23:15

4. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has entered appearance. He submits that there was a delay in filing the court fee in the suit, as money could not be withdrawn from the bank, due to demonetisation. The Court fee has now been deposited by the Plaintiff.

5. List for hearing on 27th April, 2022.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

DECEMBER 15, 2021 mw/AD