Delhi High Court - Orders
Delhi Development Authority vs Mahender Kumar Sharma on 15 May, 2023
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 800/2023
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Vrinda Kapoor and Mr. Aditya
Goyal, Advocates
versus
MAHENDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Shukla, Proxy Advocate
for Ms. Parul Ghosh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 15.05.2023 [ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ] CM APPL. 24985/2023 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 800/2023 & CM APPL. 24984/2023 (Stay)
3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 13.03.2023 passed in CS 94951/2016 titled 'Mahender Kumar Sharma Vs. DDA' whereby the learned Trial Court had dismissed the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 seeking amendment to the written statement.
4. Ms. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no doubt there has been an insurmountable delay in filing the aforesaid application, however, the amendment, that is sought to be carried out in the aforesaid application is only to the extent where This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/09/2023 at 09:13:16 the Khasra Number 1161 min was to be mentioned, and by inadvertence the earlier counsel had mentioned Khasra No. 1161/1 min instead.
5. Ms. Kapoor submits that the mistake is minor, however, the impact may not be minor for the reason that these are two different khasra numbers.
6. Ms. Kapoor submits that this would not change the nature of the stand taken by the petitioner/defendant and learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the aforesaid amendment.
7. In support of her submissions, she relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128.
8. Issue notice in the petition as well as on the stay application.
9. Mr. Puneet Shukla, proxy for Ms. Ghosh, learned counsel for respondent, who appears on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent.
10. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
11. List for consideration on 20.10.2023.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MAY 15, 2023/ms This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/09/2023 at 09:13:16