w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ravi Sharma v/s D.D.A

    Original Appeal No. 7 of 1990 In Suit No. 3106/88

    Decided On, 07 August 1990

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.L. GUPTA

    For the Appearing Parties : H.C. Mittal, Advocate.



Judgment Text

R.L. GUPTA, J.


This appeal is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff for setting aside order dated 16.4.90 of the Learned Deputy Registrar and further that additional documents already filed by the Plaintiff should be deemed to have been admitted by the Respondent because they were not admitted

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

or denied by the Defendant. Further prayer is that dates for recording oral evidence of the parties may also be fixed.


2. Notice of this appeal was issued to the Respondent-DDA. But no reply to this appeal has been filed on its behalf. On 30.4.1990 Ms. Bharti Patney Advocate appeared for the Defendant. She was granted two weeks time to file the reply. No reply, however, was filed on the next 2 or 3 dates. Today even the Counsel is absent.


3. I have head Mr. H.C. Mittal special attorney of the appellant. By order dated 9.2.90 after framing of the issues the Court had allowed six weeks time to the parties to file their additional documents, if any. That order was, however, not complied with by the Respondent. List of witnesses also was not filed. The Plaintiff filed list of witnesses as well as additional documents. Request was made on behalf of the Defendant to enlarge the time. The Deputy Registrar granted another four weeks time to DDA. I think the Deputy Registrar should not have extended this time because the time originally was granted by the Court. This amounts to violation of the powers of the Deputy Registrar as contained in Rule 3(38) in Chapter II of the Original Sides Rules of Delhi High Court. The Deputy Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar is otherwise entitled to deal with the application for enlargement or abridgement of time but where the time is fixed by the Court, he has no such power. However, inspite of the enlargement of the time by the Deputy Registrar, the Defendants have neither filed additional documents nor the list of witnesses. In these circumstances more extension to the Defendant to file the list of witnesses and the additional documents is not desirable and the same is declined.


4. Under Order 12, Rule 2A, of the Code of Civil Procedure the documents filed by the Plaintiff shall he deemed to be admitted if not denied after service of notice to admit documents. Plaintiff had filed the additional documents within time allowed by the Court., Inspite of that nobody admitted or denied the documents on behalf of the Defendants. Therefore, those documents shall be deemed to be admitted.


5. In view of the fact that time allowed by the Deputy Registrar had expired, it will serve no useful purpose if that order is set aside. Original Appeal is disposed off in the light of observations made above. Suit may now be listed before Deputy Registrar of 10th August, 1990, the date already fixed. Deputy Registrar shall now fix the dates of trial.


I.A. No. 3918/90 (Order 8 Rule 10 CPC)


6. In view of disposal of OA, this application has become infructuous, which is accordingly dismissed
OR

Already A Member?

Also