Forum Database Glossary
Library Home » Topics » Civil Law Discourse » Delhi high court

Delhi high court

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    Posts
    • #112096 Reply
      Tina DU
      Guest

      PRACTICE DIRECTIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS/ NOTICES THROUGH SPEED POST/REGISTERED POST WITH PROOF OF DELIVERY (POD) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

      These practice directions will apply in all cases where the Hon’ble Court has ordered issuance of summons/notices through Speed Post or Registered Post. These Practice Directions will come into force immediately.

      In all cases where summons/notices have been ordered by Hon’ble Court to be served through Speed Post or Registered Post the following procedure will be followed.

      a) The advocate/Party-in-Person will file Process Fee at the
      filing Counter, Delhi High Court, clearly mentioning therein
      his contact number and address along with copies of the
      petition/application to be sent with the summons/notices
      and adequate numbers of the envelopes specially designed,
      containing proof of delivery (PoD) bearing the address of
      the respondent/addressee. These envelopes are available
      at the Extension Counter set up by the Department of
      Posts in the Receipt and Despatch Branch, Main Building,
      ‘A’ Block, Delhi High Court.

      b) The Process Fee From along with envelope(s) and the
      copies of petition/application so filed will be sent by the
      Filing Counter to the concerned Branch for preparation of
      summons/notices.

      c) The concerned branch will prepare the summons/notices
      within a period of three working days of receiving the
      process fee form from the filing counter. The branch will
      immediately thereafter send the copies of summons/notices,
      envelope(s) and copy of the petition/application to the
      Receipt & Despatch Branch, which will seal the process
      in the envelope(s).

      d) The Advocate/Party-in-Person will collect sealed envelope(s)
      from the Receipt and Despatch Branch and submit them
      directly at the extension counter set up by the Department
      of Posts.

      e) The Advocates will pay the following charges directly at
      the Counter set up by the Department of Posts.

      i) Speed Post charges for the article as determined by the
      Department of Posts.
      ii) Speed Post charges for the PoD as determined by the
      Department of Posts.
      iii) Handing charges @ Rs.5/- per acknowledgment (PoD) at
      the time of booking of the article.
      iv) Scanning charges for the PoD @ Rs. 10/- at the time of
      booking of the article.

      The Speed Post charges paid once will not be refunded even if the article is not delivered or is received back unserved.

      The concerned Advocate/Party-in-Person will file an affidavit of service along with the receipt of summons/ notices sent in the specially designed envelope(s) through Speed Post and the tracking report as available on the net.

      The Department of Posts will send the scanned copy of the PoD electronically to the e-mail ID of the nominated officer of the Delhi High Court immediately on receipt of the same in the concerned Post Office.

      The undelivered/refused articles or the duly signed PoD (or its scanned copy) received in the Receipt & Despatch Branch will be sent to the concerned Branches for further necessary action.

      If the advocate/party concerned desires to have a scanned copy of the POD then he may furnish his e-mail ID at the time of filing of Process Fee form and should send a request to the Assistant Registrar (Appellate) (Email arappellate.dhc@nic.in) through email in this regard, who shall forward the scanned copy of the POD received electronically from the Department of Posts.

    • #112097 Reply
      Tina DU
      Guest

      Anil Khanna v. Geeta Khanna & Ors. (Mukta Gupta, J.)

      ILR (2014) I DELHI 1
      I.A.
      ANIL KHANNA ….PLAINTIFF
      VERSUS
      GEETA KHANNA & ORS. ….DEFENDANTS
      (MUKTA GUPTA, J.)
      I.A. NO. : 4730/2011 DATE OF DECISION: 02.09.2013
      CS (OS) NO. : 2320/10

      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—S. 9—Suit—Order XII
      Rule 6—Judgment on admission—Admission of fact
      clear and unambiguous-admission on law not requirednot mandatory to act and pass judgment-an application
      for judgment against D4 tenant-admission in written
      statement-D4 admitted plaintiff and D1 to D3 co-sharer
      of the suit property-D4 inducted into the suit property
      as tenant by D1 to D3 at the back of the plaintiff-lease
      executed by D1 to D3 not valid D4 liable to vacate the
      premises—Contended right of tenancy could not be
      raised an vague plea of settlement-or a contrary plea
      of being co-sharer-pleadings insufficient for raising
      an issue—D4 contended-admissions as alleged not in
      the written statement-fact stated in the preliminary
      objection without prejudice-do not constitute reply on
      merit-verification averment in the preliminary
      objections-believed to be true-legal information
      received-D2 to WS division of property took placebeing a disputed question could not be decided at
      this stage—Court Observed-distribution of equal
      portion to each co-parcner being in possession of
      each for a long time-accepted-enjoyed by them without
      any objection-hindrance-denial-obstruction-amounts to
      division/partition—Held- settled law if a co-parcner is
      in exclusive possession of any portion of undivided piece of land or property not exceeding his or her
      share-her share in possession cannot be disturbed
      until partition-transferee would also have the right
      and could not be dispossessed by other co-sharer
      until partition-the property ancestral-D1 to D3 have
      right in the said property-left behind by Sh. Ajay Khanna
      husband of D2 and also through WILL the preliminary
      objections based on legal advise-not replying on merit
      where the parties require to plead fact specificallypreliminary objection-contrary plea not amount to
      admission-further Held-for judgment on admission to
      be pronounced at any stage admission to be of fact
      clear and unambiguous-admissions not required of
      questions of law-however not mandatory for the Court
      to act and pass judgment the facts and circumstances
      of each case have to be taken note of plaintiff himself
      filed lease agreement—Therefore, it cannot be said
      that the averment in the written statement vague
      resulting in passing of defence in favour of the
      plaintiff—Application dismissed.
      Further the preliminary objections are based on legal advice.
      The same are not reply on merits wherein the party is
      required to plead facts specifically. In preliminary objections
      parties can even take contrary pleas. The same would not
      amount to an admission.

      It is well settled that an admission has to be categorical, in
      clear and unambiguous terms admitting the case of other
      side. In Sneh Vasih and another vs. Filatex India Ltd.
      and another, 95 (2002) DLT 373

      Important Issue Involved: (a) Unnecessary scandpalous,
      frivolous of fictitious pleadings which tend to prejudice and
      embarrass or delay the fair trial are liable to be struck off
      (b) for the judgment to be pronounced on admission, such
      admissions must be admission of facts, must be clear and
      unambiguous terms admitting the case of other parties. (c)
      admission of questions of law is not required.

      CASES REFERRED TO:

      1. Paam Antibiotics Ltd. vs. Sudesh Madhok, 186 2012 DLT
        6520
      2. Sathi Vijay Kumar, 2006 (13) SCC 353.
      3. Sneh Vasih and another vs. Filatex India Ltd. and another,
        95 (2002) DLT 373.
      4. Mrs. Rekha Singal vs. Lavleen Singal, 96 (2002) DLT 289.
      5. D.M. Deshpande and others vs. Janardhan Kashinath
        Kadam (dead) by LRs and others, AIR 1999 SC 1464.
      6. Manjit K. Singh vs. S. Kanwarjit Singh, 58 (1995) DLT
      7. I. Gouri and others vs. Dr. C.H. Ibrahim and another,
        AIR 1980 Kerala 94.
      8. Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and
        others, AIR 1961 Punjab 528.
      9. Chhedi Lal and another vs. Chhotey Lal, AIR (38) 1951
        Allahabad 199.
Viewing 1 reply thread
Reply To: Delhi high court
Your information: