NIRANJAN LAL GUPTA vs UOI

Judgment text excerpt

$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 7th April, 2025 + CM(M) 643/2025 NIRANJAN LAL GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Kr. Goyal with Ms. Ritika Goyal, Advocates. versus UOI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Yash, GP and Mr. Shubrodeep Saha and Mr. Prbhat Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. A reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is pending adjudication before the Court of learned District Judge-02 (East). 2. An application seeking intervention was filed by Mr. Niranajan Lal Gupta. 3. Such application moved under Order I Rule 10 CPC came up for consideration before the learned Trial Court on 20.12.2024. 4. Though his counsel, Mr. Naveen Kr. Goyal was present in the Court, the applicant himself had not appeared before the Court and it was apprised to the learned Court that the applicant had joined the proceedings through video Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 643/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:08.04.2025 16:46:48 conferencing. Since the applicant was not visible on the video confernecing platform, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application in default. 5. Interestingly, when same day, the matter was taken up by the learned Reference Court in no time thereafter i.e. at 10:30 A.M., applicant Mr. Niranajan Lal Gupta joined the proceedings but to no avail. 6. The question is when the counsel of applicant was very much present before the learned Trial Court, could the learned Trial Court have dismissed the application in default? 7. Since the counsel was present, there was no embargo in hearing arguments and after hearing arguments, if the Court was of the view that the application had no merit, it could have easily dismissed t