SARJO DEVI@SAROJ vs DHARAMPAL(DECEASED)THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS

Judgment text excerpt

$~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28th, August, 2025 + CM(M) 1656/2025, CM APPL. 53948/2025 & CM APPL. 53949/2025 SARJO DEVI@SAROJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikram Singh Dahiya, Advocate versus DHARAMPAL(DECEASED)THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and is, merely, aggrieved by imposition of cost of Rs. 3,000/- upon her. 2. It is noticed that the suit was instituted way back in the year 2010 and after change in pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit got transferred to District Courts. 3. When the case was at the stage of final arguments, an application was moved by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint and when the aforesaid application was taken up on 31.07.2025, there was no physical appearance from the side of the plaintiff. Admittedly, some proxy counsel joined the proceedings through videoconferencing but since he was not audible, learned Trial Court, while also appreciating the fact that the main arguing counsel was on his legs in High Court of Delhi, though, gave an adjournment, but also burdened the plaintiff with cost of Rs. 3,000/-. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1656/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:29.08.2025 17:20:30 4. When an application was moved seeking waiver of cost, the same was also dismissed. 5. Such orders are under challenge. 6. After going through the impugned orders and appreciating the background of the case, this Court does not find any reason, much less a compelling one, to interfere with the impugned orders while invoking its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There appears no illegality or perversity in the impugned o