MEENAKSHI SHARMA vs RANVEER SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26th, August, 2025 + CM(M) 1449/2025 & CM APPL. 47564/2025 & CM APPL. 47565/2025 MEENAKSHI SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Shokeen, Adv. alongwith petitioner in person. versus RANVEER SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mohit Batra, Adv. alongwith respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a suit which is commercial in nature. 2. Respondent/plaintiff is seeking his ejectment, arrears of rent/damages and mesne profit. 3. Defendant takes exception to order dated 26.05.2025 whereby his written statement has been directed to be taken off the record. 4. His contention is two-fold. 5. Firstly, the written statement was filed within the permissible outer limit of 120 days. The defendant was, reportedly, served on 22.01.2025 and the written statement was filed on 17.05.2025. It is submitted that even if, at the time of filing of written statement, it was not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay, learned Trial Court should not have directed the written statement to be taken off record for the abovesaid reason Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1449/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:27.08.2025 19:46:46 only. Secondly, when learned Trial Court had taken up the matter on 23.04.2025, the learned Trial Court, itself, granted defendant four weeks’ time to file written statement and the same has been filed within a period of four weeks as granted by learned Trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff does not dispute the factual aspects. He, however, submits that when the written statement was filed on 17.05.2025, since there was delay, the defendant should have filed an application seeking con