M/S HARI OM HOMEO KALAYANPUR vs GANGA PARSHAD PURI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27th March, 2025 + CM(M) 567/2025 & CM APPL. 17821-17822/2025 M/S HARI OM HOMEO KALAYANPUR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kushal Kumar with Mr. Kumar Umrao and Mr. Pranay Kumar, Advocates. versus GANGA PARSHAD PURI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. T K Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aquib Ali, Ms. Anupriya Nigam and Ms. Ameeran Khaliq, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The point involved in the present petition is very short and precise. 2. A commercial suit was filed by respondent/plaintiffs seeking possession, permanent and mandatory injunction. 3. According to plaintiffs, the property was leased out by virtue of lease agreement dated 17.02.2021, which was even got registered. 4. The defendant in such civil suit i.e. petitioner herein, was duly served with the summons on 24.05.2024. 5. When the matter was taken up by the learned District Judge, (Commercial Court) on 10.02.2025, it considered one application moved by defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC whereby the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 567/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:28.03.2025 12:41:04 defendant was seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. It dismissed the same observing that the delay in filing written statement was of 51 days, beyond the statutory period of 30 days and that defendant, petitioner herein, had failed to show any justifiable or reasonable ground for condonation of delay and, resultantly, while dismissing the abovesaid application under Order VIII Rule 1, it struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant as well. 6. Such order is under challenge. 7. Admittedly, the written statement had been filed by defendant on 14.0