MAHIPAL SINGH & ORS. vs ASHOK KUMAR KAUSHIK & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$-O-24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 369/2020 and I.A. 35779/2024 Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 IN THE MATTER OF: MAHIPAL SINGH & ORS. .....Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Mr.Shivam Takiar and Mr.Prateek Dhir, Advocates. Versus ASHOK KUMAR KAUSHIK & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr.Praveen Kumar, Mr.Ajit Kumar, Mr.Harsh Priya and Mr.Kumar Shubham, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) I.A. 49640/2024 (by plaintiff – to condone delay of 99 days in filing O.A. 228/2024) 1. Upon perusal of the reasons stated in the application, the Court is of the opinion that the delay of 99 days in filing the of O.A. 228/2024 can be condoned. 2. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed Signing Date:10.03.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 15:56:44 1 KUMAR KAURAV O.A. 228/2024 (Chamber Appeal under Rule 5 Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018) 3. The instant chamber appeal has arisen from the orders dated 03.07.2024 and 27.08.2024 passed by the learned Joint Registrar. 4. The order dated 03.07.2024 essentially closes the right of the plaintiff to file the replication. The Registrar noted that although the plaintiff had filed the replication on 11.02.2021, however, it remained under objection and was never re-filed. Consequently, the right to file the replication was directed to be closed. 5. In the subsequent order dated 27.08.2024, the Joint Registrar passed a direction dispensing with the requirement for the defendant‟s admission/denial of documents, given that the plaintiff‟s right to file the replication had already been closed. Consequently, the