RAVINDRA CHAUDHARY vs LAXMI CHAND GUPTA

Judgment text excerpt

$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 28th April, 2026 + CM(M) 965/2026, CM APPL. 28296/2026 & CM APPL. 28297/2026 RAVINDRA CHAUDHARY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raj Kamal, Ms. Narayani and Ms. Dimpy, Advs. versus LAXMI CHAND GUPTA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA ORDER (Oral) Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 13th February, 2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in case bearing No. CS DJ 396/2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant no. 1 under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been dismissed. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures which is Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA CM(M) 965/2026 Page 1 of 3 DHYANI Signing Date:29.04.2026 13:14:04 against the facts and law. The delay in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement is only on account of change of Counsel and for that, the petitioner should not suffer. 5. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 13th February, 2026 reads as follows: “Heard. Record perused. The written statement of the defendant no.1 was taken off the record on 23.11.2023 and more than two years and two months passed since then. The plea of the defendant no.1 that his previous counsel has failed to file the application for condonation of delay in filing written statement and the defendant no.1 should not be punished for the mistake of