Delhi High Court - Orders
Dlf Homes Rajapura Pvt. Ltd vs Late O.P. Mehta & Anr on 6 July, 2022
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~2 (Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 574/2022
DLF HOMES RAJAPURA PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Ms.
Sonia Dhamija, Ms. Shweta Priyadarshni,
Ms. Seema Sundd, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Mr.
Alabhya Dhamija and Mr. Drouhn Garg,
Advs.
Versus
LATE O.P. MEHTA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Chandrachur Bhattacharya,
Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey and Ms. Divya,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 06.07.2022 CM(M) 574/2022,CM 27502/2022 (exemption) CM 27501/2022 (stay) and CM 29443/2022 (stay)
1. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has advanced submissions. Mr. Chandrachur Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the respondents, is on his legs.
2. Two submissions were urged by Ms. Agnihotri, which already stand noted in the earlier order passed in this matter on 3rd June 2022.
3. The first was that the complaint filed by the respondents had abated consequent to the demise of Respondent 1 and that, no Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 574/2022 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:07.07.2022 18:45:16 application for setting aside abatement of the complaint having been preferred, the proceedings had come to an end by operation of law. She sought to submit that the application for substitution of legal heirs, which was later filed, could not suffice as an application for setting aside the abatement. She also sought to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini1, inter alia drawing the attention of the Court to the fact that, in that case, out of three plaintiffs, one had died, and an application for setting aside the abatement of the suit had been filed by the legal heirs of the said plaintiff within time and had been allowed. Her submission is that it was in these circumstances that the Supreme Court did not regard non-filing of the application for setting aside of the abatement by the other two plaintiffs as fatal to the proceedings.
4. Ms. Agnihotri also placed reliance on Madan Naik v. Hansubala Devi 2 to contend that a specific order setting aside abatement is necessary, even if the specific order declaring the suit to have been abated is not required. No such specific order setting aside the abatement of the complaint consequent on the death of Respondent 1, O.P. Mehta having been passed, she submits that the proceedings stand abated by operation of law.
5. Ms. Agnihotri has also seriously contested the findings of the learned NCDRC qua the application of the condonation of delay. She submits that the finding of the learned NCDRC is non-speaking in this 1 (2003) 10 SCC 691 2 (1983) 3 SCC 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 574/2022 Page 2 of 4 Signing Date:07.07.2022 18:45:16 regard and merely refers to the application of condonation of delay filed by the respondents. According to her, the application for condonation of delay contends precious little on the basis of which the delay of 607 days in filing the complaint could legitimately condoned. She has placed reliance, in this context, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh3 and UOI v. Ram Charan.4
6. Mr. Chandrachur Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the respondents initially submitted, relying on Mohd. Shafiq v. Mirza Mohd. Hussain 5 that the order of the learned NCDRC, condoning delay, being discretionary in nature, warranted no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be justified.
7. He also sought to contend that, relying on para 8 of the report in Ripudev v. Somdas6, as the complaint filed by him before the learned NCDRC, had been brought in a representative capacity, Order XXII Rules 3 and 4 were not applicable and, instead, Order XXII Rule 10 would apply.
8. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the respondents interjects to point out that, at the time of expiry of Respondent 1, notice had yet to be issued on the application of the respondent under Section 12(1)(C) and that, therefore, it could not be said that, at that stage, the complaint had even been brought in representative capacity.
3(2010) 8 SCC 685 4 AIR 1964, SC 215 5 (2002) 9 SCC 460 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 574/2022 Page 3 of 4 Signing Date:07.07.2022 18:45:16
9. Mr. Bhattacharya seeks a day's time in order to equip himself with more material.
10. Accordingly, renotify as part heard on 7th July, 2022.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J JULY 6, 2022 r.bararia 6 1976 1 SSC 103 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 574/2022 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:07.07.2022 18:45:16