CHANDRA ABHISHEK RAJ SRIVASTAVA vs DR. AKSHAY MEHRA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 10.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 16.12.2025 + FAO 342/2025, CM APPL. 77775/2025, CM APPL. 77776/2025 & CM APPL. 77777/2025 CHANDRA ABHISHEK RAJ SRIVASTAVA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Kumar Prashant, Ms. Asmita Singh and Ms. Simran Chabra, Advocates. versus DR. AKSHAY MEHRA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manik Ahluwalia and Mr. Devashish Boohankar, Advocates for R-1 along with respondent no.1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA JUDGMENT CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J. 1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Sections 104 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) has been filed by the defendant in MISC DJ No. 1004 of 2025 (IN CS No. 811 of 2019) on the file of District Judge – 04, Patiala House Signature Not Verified FAO 342/2025 Page 1 of 8 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:16.12.2025 12:13:16 Courts, New Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2025, whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and the application under Section of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act) for condonation of delay of 579 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 were dismissed. 2. In this appeal, unless otherwise specified, the parties will be referred to as described in the plaint. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant for eviction, possession and mesne profits. According to the plaintiffs, the suit premises, a farmhouse, was given on lease to the defendant. The lease expired on 30.09.2019, whereupon the defendant was called upon to vacate the suit premises. However, the defendant refused to vacate the tenanted premises. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statemen