REETA LALWANI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India emanates from the order dtd. 6/5/2024 as well as the order dtd. 18/10/2023, passed by the Additional District Judge-01, Dwarka Courts, Delhi ('Trial Court') in CS/DJ/ADJ/122/2020 titled as 'Reeta Lalwani vs Delhi Development Authority &Ors'. The petitioner is aggrieved that the learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 18/10/2023 allowed the defendant no.12/respondent no.12 to place his written statement on record after closing the right to do so and framed two preliminary issues which are contrary to the material on record and thereafter vide the order dtd. 6/5/2024, dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner seeking to review the order dtd. 18/10/2023. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the learned Trial Court.

(2.) A brief factual background leading to the filing of the present petition is that in February 2020, the petitioner filed the present suit for declaration, partition, possession, mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondents herein. The contention of the petitioner in the suit is that her mother is the owner of the property bearing No.243, Block H, Vikas Puri, New Delhi which was sold by the respondents on the basis of will dtd. 5/2/2001. This being the main contention of the petitioner, it is not necessary to enumerate the other facts as mentioned before the learned Trial Court.

(3.) Summons for the settlement of issues were issued on 18/2/2020, however due to the ongoing COVID pandemic, summons were finally served upon the respondents on 26/7/2021. Respondent no.12 entered appearance on 6/1/2022 and on 30/8/2022, it was observed by the learned Trial Court that the statutory time to file the written statement had expired, however respondent no.12 was asked to file his written statement subject to the prescribed statutory period. Subsequent thereto, the respondent no.12 failed to file the written statement within the stipulated time period and the learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 14/12/2022, struck off the defence of respondent no.12.