27 December 2021, Monday

2 years ago

Allowing an application to condone the delay in filing a set-aside application cannot be interfered with under Article 227 despite doubt if the original filing was non-est: Delhi High Court

10 December 2021 | Ashok Kumar Puri v. S Suncon Realtors (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5220 | CM (M) 610 of 2021 | Amit Bansal J | Delhi High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5220

A set-aside petition was filed beyond three months but within the 30 days discretionary period. The Commercial Court allowed the application for condonation of delay and imposed Rs. 5,000/- costs.

Even though the High Court felt there “may be some merit in the contentions” that the original filing itself was non-est because it lacked several important documents and formalities, it was not a case of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court said that the order was not passed without inherent jurisdiction.

Also, since Section 8 CCA bars revision (under Section 115 CPC) against interlocutory orders in commercial matters, the scope of interference under Article 227 is also narrow.

Read the decision here.

Next

connect with us: