BEFORE THE HON”BLE COURT OF MS.

VANDANA, ADJ,
DIST CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1042 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Geeta Rai ……..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Pawan Kumar Kakaria ……..DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SYNOPSIS OF THE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT

UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING
AMENDMENT IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE DEFENDANT

IT IS RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Defendant most respectfully submits that the

present suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2020 when
the pandemic emergency of Covid-19 was on its peak and
the Notice/Summon of the present suit was received by the
defendant during the period of Nationwide Lockdown. On
Receiving of the Summon/Notice the defendant engaged one
Advocate on advice/consultation of a friend,who was not
previously known to the defendant and without properly
knowing about the Advocate.
2. That The defendant narrated the True and actual facts to
the previous Advocate and then a written statement was
filed by the previous advocate but the facts which were
disclosed by the Defendant to the said advocate were not
properly mentioned in the written statement filed by the
said advocate and was taken on record. The said advocate
was not able to defend the defendant and hence the
defendant had to replace the previous advocate and appoint
a new Advocate.

3. That since only after the appointment of the new advocate to

make effective defense, the Defendant came to know and
was surprised to know that the previous advocate had not
mentioned the complete and true facts as stated/narrated
by the defendant in the written statement filed by said
advocate on behalf of the Defendant. Aggrieved by this, a
complaint was also filed by the Defendant before the Bar
Council against the said advocate and a response for the
same was also received by the Defendant. The Copy of the
Complaint filed by the Defendant to Bar council and
Response received by the defendant is already placed on
record with the previous application filed by the Defendant
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, respectively. In the case of
“SCJ Plastics ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise”
cited as CEAC No. 28/2011, has held that, At the same time
we may also take note of the aspect that litigant cannot be
allowed to suffer because of the mistake of the counsel.