NARESH SHAKYA vs RAVINDER SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 05th May, 2025 + CM(M) 830/2025 & CM APPL. 27009/2025 NARESH SHAKYA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Panwar and Mr. Hiran Anand, Advocates. versus RAVINDER SINGH .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a recovery suit. 2. He was duly served and, when he appeared before the learned Trial Court on 25.11.2024, he was given time to file written statement. However, learned counsel for the defendant submitted before the learned trial Court that the plaintiff be directed to supply a legible copy of the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, accordingly, undertook to supply such legible copy of the plaint, during the course of the day. 3. Fact, however, remains that same day, the matter was, even, referred for mediation in order to find out possibility of any amicable settlement between the parties. 4. Unfortunately, the matter could not get settled and when the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 04.02.2025, noticing that the written statement had not been filed, the right to file written statement has been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 830/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:06.05.2025 15:10:32 closed. 5. Such order is under challenge. 6. None appears on behalf of the plaintiff, despite service of advance notice. 7. This Court has gone through order dated 25.11.2024 as well as 04.02.2025. 8. Mr. Rohit Panwar, learned counsel for petitioner, is also defending them before the learned Trial Court and he states at the Bar that no legible copy of the plaint and documents was supplied to him either on 25.11.2024 or any date subsequent thereto. 9. He submits that on 04.02.2025 the plaintiff had himsel