JYOTI CHAUDHARY & ANR. vs RAI VIRENDER NAGPAL

$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 03rd July, 2024
+ CM(M) 2839/2024 & CM APPL. 36515/2024 & CM APPL. 36516/2024
JYOTI CHAUDHARY & ANR. …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Jain with Mr. Varun Mudgal, Mr. Pauras Tyagi and Mr. Rishav Tyagi, Advocates.

versus

RAI VIRENDER NAGPAL …..Respondent
Through: Mr. Robin Tyagi, Advocate

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.02.2024.
2. Both the petitioners happen to be defendants before the learned Trial Court.
3. They were proceeded again ex-parte vide order dated 23.05.2022. They moved application seeking to set aside such ex-parte order which was disposed of on 29.11.2023. I have seen order dated 29.11.2023 which indicates that though the defendants were required to file written statement within the stipulated period of 30 days but they did not file the same. It noticed that though there was no ground to allow the application, the ex-parte order was set aside subject to cost of Rs. 40,000/-
4. A sum of Rs. 15,000/-, out of such cost, was directed to be paid to the defendants and the rest of the amount was directed to be deposited with Shahdara Bar Association, Karkardooma, Delhi.
5. Admittedly, the written statement was submitted on record on 07.07.2022.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner sought waiver of cost by moving an application under Section 151 CPC. The request was two-fold i.e. either to waive off the cost or to reduce the same.
7. However, the learned Trial Court, finding no merit in such application, dismissed the same on 15.02.2024 and, resultantly, it also ordered that the written statement of the petitioners may be taken off the record.
8. Such order is under challenge.
9. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he confines his request to the reduction of the cost. It is claimed that the petitioners are not working anywhere and since these women have no source of income either, it is a fit case where the cost should have been reduced, if not waived altogether.
10. Mr. Robin Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent appears on advance notice through video-conferencing and leaves it to the Court to pass appropriate orders.
11. Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons cited, the present petition is partly allowed and it is directed that cost of Rs. 15,000/- be paid to the opposite side, as per the directions of the learned Trial Court, on or before the next date of hearing which is stated to be 27.07.2024. The rest part of the cost of Rs. 25,000/-, which was payable to the Shahdara Bar Association, stands waived.
12. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
JULY 03, 2024/sw

CM(M) 2839/2024 1