PUSHPINDER KUMAR & ANR. vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 + CM(M) 2193/2025, CM APPL. 71712/2025 & CM APPL. 71711/2025 PUSHPINDER KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Arjit Benjamin and Ms. Kashish Jain, Advocates versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shilpa Dewan, Standing Counsel for MCD CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R (ORAL) 1. Petitioners have assailed order dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Appellate Tribunal, MCD, whereby the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the present respondent no. 2 was disposed of granting him liberty to address arguments in appeal before ATMCD. 2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners, I am unable to find any perversity in the impugned order, so notice is not being issued. 3. It is argued on behalf of petitioners that an intervener can be allowed to participate in the appeals before the ATMCD in accordance with law laid down in the case of Hardayal Singh Mehta vs. MCD, 1991 SCC OnLine CM(M) 2193/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556 9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, Digitally Signed KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709 96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, By:NEETU N NAIR cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.11.17 17:40:28 -08'00' Signing Date:17.11.2025 17:43:34 Del 558, but that has to be done only in exceptional cases. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioners has referred to the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC which led to passing of the impugned order. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that there are no exceptional cir