M/S DSI SOLUTION PVT. LTD. (OPC) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PRAVEEN SAINI vs SH. NARESH KUMAR HOODA

Judgment text excerpt

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 20.11.2025 + CM(M) 2238/2025 & CM APPL. 72859/2025 M/S DSI SOLUTION PVT. LTD. (OPC) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PRAVEEN SAINI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.N. Gautam, Advocate. versus SH. NARESH KUMAR HOODA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R (ORAL) 1. Petitioner/defendant by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed order dated 11.08.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permission to sign and attest the verification clause at foot of the plaint was allowed. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner/defendant, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. 2. Broadly speaking, it appears that the respondent/plaintiff, while instituting a suit for money recovery duly signed the plaint and even the supporting affidavit, but due to inadvertence did not sign the verification clause, though the same was textually complete. It is in order to rectify that CM(M) 2238/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801 e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA By:NEETU N NAIR Date: 2025.11.20 14:15:53 -08'00' Signing Date:20.11.2025 14:21:33 error, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The application was opposed by the petitioner/defendant mainly on the ground of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC as the trial had already commenced upon framing o