KUSUM CHAWLA vs MEENU CHAWLA AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27th, August, 2025 + CM(M) 1633/2025 & CM APPL. 53349/2025 KUSUM CHAWLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Anisha Gupta, Mr. Mohit J. and Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocates. versus MEENU CHAWLA AND ANR .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The petitioner has filed a suit against her daughter-in-law and grandson. 2. It is a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction and the petitioner is seeking direction to defendants to remove their belongings, articles lying in the suit property and to handover the possession to the plaintiff. 3. Admittedly, the defendants were served on 08.09.2024 and there is delay from their side in filing the written statement. 4. As per the impugned order, the delay is of 68 days and the learned Trial Court, while condoning the abovesaid delay, has directed the written statement to be taken on record. 5. All in all, the application moved by the defendants under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC has been allowed subject to cost. 6. Such order dated 28.07.2025 is under challenge. 7. Learned Trial Court was of the view that the disputes involved in the suit in question could be effectively answered only after having response of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1633/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:28.08.2025 17:19:14 defendant. It also observed that the suit was at initial stage as the issues had yet not been framed and it also made reference to one another suit i.e. Partition Suit which was pending between the parties with respect to the suit property itself. It also observed that the parties were earlier also trying to Mediate though such Mediation had failed. 8. Keep