YATENDER SHARMA AND ANR vs INDU SHARMA THROUGH SPA

Judgment text excerpt

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 06th May, 2026 + CM(M) 1040/2026, CM APPL. 30374/2026 &CM APPL. 30375/2026 YATENDER SHARMA AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aakar Bhardwaj, Advocate. versus INDU SHARMA THROUGH SPA .....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 has been filed by the petitioners/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the order dated 12th February, 2026 passed by the trial court in Civ. Suit 196/23, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking permission to place on record the written statement to the amended plaint has been dismissed. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the written statement to the amended plaint could not be filed due to lapse on part of the previous counsel and the petitioners were not aware of the requisite procedure. The petitioners should not to be made to suffer on account of negligence of their previous counsel. In case the petitioners are not CM(M) 1040/2026 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Date:07.05.2026 11:21:54 permitted to file the written statement to the amended plaint, grave prejudice would be caused to the defence of the petitioners, and it is also necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. 5. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 12th February, 2026 reads as follows: “Perusal of the record reveals that defendant no. 1 had filed his written statement within the statutory period after being served in the present case. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC