JAI PARKASH vs SATPAL LUTHRA

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 15th January, 2026 Date of Decision: 19th January, 2026 + CM(M) 849/2025, CM APPL. 27316/2025 & CM APPL. 27317/2025 JAI PARKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Verma and Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocates. versus SATPAL LUTHRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Singh Tanwar, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 17th January, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”) passed by the trial court in case bearing no. 2 RC ARC 933/16, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DRC Act’) has been disposed of as withdrawn. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures and is against the law. The respondent has withdrawn the application in a deceitful manner by misusing process of law, as the same was likely to be dismissed. The application had reached the stage of the evidence and was withdrawn Signature Not Verified CM(M) 849/2025 Page 1 of 4 Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Date:19.01.2026 16:23:45 without disclosing any justified reasons. It is further submitted that the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) was filed on behalf of the respondent for the withdrawal of his application. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the impugned order is