PUSHPA SHARMA Vs. V V GUJRAL
LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-59
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on October 11,2007

PUSHPA SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
V.V.GUJRAL,KUSHLA SEHGAL,KIRTI PARASHAR,EEDA GUJRAL CHOPRA,MEDHA GUJRAL JAGOTA,AJAY SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI V.B.SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.M.MALIK, J. - (1.) The facts of this case are these. The summons were served upon both the defendants, the petitioner and her son, on 14th February, 2004 They were directed to appear before the trial court on 17th February, 2004 The grouse of the petitioner, Smt. Pushpa Sharma, is that she was not served personally in this case. The service was affected on her son, Shri Mukesh Sharma, who had come from Canada for his marriage which was solemnized on 10th February, 2004
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mukesh Sharma has also filed an affidavit dated 17th May, 2005, before the trial court, wherein he disclosed the following facts. He came to India on 2nd February, 2004 to get married. His marriage was solemnized on 10th February, 2004 He was to go for his honeymoon in the evening of 14th February, 2004 and in the afternoon, one person came from the Court and asked him to receive certain papers for his mother and brother. Though he did not have cordial relations with his brother, but, since he had attended his marriage ceremony, he received the papers. He could not locate his mother, so he kept the papers in the open shelf. Since he was very busy in preparation to go for his honeymoon, he forgot to tell about those papers to his mother. Thereafter, he left for his honeymoon and came back on 27th February, 2004 Thereafter, he got busy in preparation to leave for Canada on 1st March, 2004 During this entire period, he completely forgot to tell his mother about the papers and left for Canada on 1st March, 2004
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner also points out that in the meantime petitioner's another son, namely, Ajay Sharma filed the written statement before the concerned Court and forged the signatures of the petitioner on the written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police Station Lodhi Road against her son, Ajay Sharma. Counsel for the petitioner admits that no FIR has yet been registered by the SHO Police Station Lodhi Road.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.