KHERATI LAL THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS vs SMT. RAJKUMARI

Judgment text excerpt

$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 + CM(M) 1823/2025, CM APPL. 58552/2025 & CM APPL. 58551/2025 KHERATI LAL THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandita Rao and Mr. Jai Shankar, Advocates. versus SMT. RAJKUMARI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia A. Menon, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. Petitioners (eviction respondents before the trial court) have assailed order dated 10.06.2025 of learned Additional Rent Controller, whereby in the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act at the stage of respondent’s evidence, application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the present petitioners was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the present respondent appearing on advance intimation accepts notice. CM(M) 1823/2025 Page 1 of 2 pages Signature Not Verified GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb48 35d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2e ee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.16 17:19:09 -07'00' Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:16.09.2025 17:27:18 3. After part submissions, learned counsel for both sides fairly admit that the impugned order is not sustainable for two reasons. Firstly, the learned trial court took a wrong view that the present petitioners can lead evidence even without any foundational pleadings. Secondly, the impugned order does not discuss each of the amendment sought by the present petitioners, and rather appears to be an omnibus order. 4. Accordingly, with consent of both sid