A person cannot be subjected to prejudice merely because of difficulty in having his application for restoration listed before the court: The High Court of Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 6033 2021 & C.M APPLs. 19090 091 2021 AJAY GARG ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sunil Dalal Sr. Adv. with Mr. Devashish Bhadauria Mr. Kawaljit Singh and Mr. Jaskaran Singh Advs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan Standing Counsel with Mr. Paritosh Dhawan Adv. for HON BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT28.06.2021 Video Conferencing) This petition has been taken up on mention as listing was allowed in view of the urgency involved. With consent of parties the petition is being disposed of in view of the nature of the controversy. It is not necessary to dwell in detail on the facts. Suffice it to state that Suit No. 82888 2016 had been preferred by the petitioner before the learned Senior Civil Judge Saket challenging the proposal of the DDA to demolish the property of the petitioner located at D 66 3 Gautam Nagar New Delhi. Said suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge vide order dated 8th April 2021 under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. W.P.(C) 6033 2021 Court. The petitioner moved an application for restoration of the suit. However Mr. Dalal submits that as the presiding officer of the court which was dealing with the petitioner’s suit is not sitting the application for restoration has not been listed. Given the present scenario in which the trial courts are functioning only on a virtual and restricted mode he submits that despite his client’s best efforts it has not been possible to have the restoration application listed before the In the meanwhile he submits that his client has been constrained to move the present petition before this Court as the respondents are taking action to demolish the aforesaid property. As such the petition seeks a restraint on the respondents demolishing the property till final decision in SCJ 82888 2016. Mr. Dalal states fairly that though stricto sensu SCJ 82888 2016 does not survive he seeks status quo regarding the aforesaid property till the decision on the restoration application filed by his client. 5. Mr. Dhanesh Relan learned Standing Counsel for the DDA submits that the property of the petitioner has already been demolished though the said assertion is disputed by Mr. Sunil Dalal on instructions. In my opinion the petitioner cannot be subjected to prejudice merely because of difficulty in having his application for restoration listed before the court given the present strained circumstances. W.P.(C) 6033 2021 7. As such without entering into the disputes between the parties on merits I am inclined to dispose of this petition in the following The learned District JudgeSaket is requested to assign a suitable court to consider the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of SCJ 82888 2016 and have the matter listed before the said court on 7th July 2021. Needless to say learned Counsel for the parties would be intimated the details of the court before which the matter is to be listed by e mail at their respective e mail IDs. The matter would be taken up by video conferencing on the said date. ii) The DDA shall maintain status quo as of now as it exists at 05:30 p.m. on 28th June 2021 till and subject to the decision of the appropriate court on the petitioner’s application for iii) The learned trial court shall decide the petitioner’s application for restoration on its own merits uninfluenced by any observations contained in this order. It is reiterated that this Court has not returned any observations on merits on the disputes between the parties. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Let a copy of this order be emailed to learned counsel for the W.P.(C) 6033 2021 parties within 24 hours. today to the DDA. JUNE 28 2021 10. Mr. Relan undertakes to convey the gist of the order passed C. HARI SHANKAR J. W.P.(C) 6033 2021 

Summary: In the present strained circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice that a person be denied the opportunity to file an application for restoration of the case and the same must be treated on urgent basis by the authorities. The aforesaid has been established by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ajay Garg v. Delhi Development Authority [W.P.(C) 6033/2021 &amp; C.M APPLs. 19090-091/2021] which was decided by a single judge bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar on 28th June 2021. The facts of the case are as follows, It is stated that Suit No. 82888/2016 had been preferred by the petitioner before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saket, challenging the proposal of the DDA to demolish the property of the petitioner located at D66/3, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. Said suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, vide order dated 8th April, 2021, under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for restoration of the suit. Counsel for petitioner submitted that, as the presiding officer of the court which was dealing with the petitioner’s suit is not sitting, the application for restoration has not been listed. Given the present scenario, in which the trial courts are functioning only on a virtual and restricted mode, he submits that despite his client’s best efforts, it has not been possible to have the restoration application listed before the Court. Learned Standing Counsel for the DDA, submits that the property of the petitioner has already been demolished, though the said assertion is disputed by counsel for petitioner on instructions.