Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Place: Gurugram
Date: r8.04.2ffi..2
ApMtitioner
I� ,2--oi 2.-
IA NO. 1 OF2022
IN
CIVIL SUIT NO. 315 OF 2022
NDOH: 27.04.2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
NEMO through Lt Col 0/ eteran) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi •.. Applicant Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, Government of India & others
... Defendants
2. That the Ld. CGSC appeared for Union of India on 15.02.2022 and he as also the
State ofHaryana sought time till 22.02.2022 for filing written statement as recorded
in order of the date.
3. That out of abundant caution fresh notice was issued to two respondents and the
defendant no. 6 was considered ex-parte from 15.02.2022 but was restored suo moto
by the court only on 22.03.2022, this too only because attendance was being recorded
of the. Ld. CGSC without a formal restitution from 22.02.2022 onwards.
·4_ That on 22.03.2022 and all subsequent days the respondents were directed to file WS
but on every date no WS was filed neither a permission was sought for filing WS
beyond the 30 days limit. Be that as it may, on 04.04.2022 the Ld. Court directed the
personal presence of authorised officers of the six defendants concerned for
16.04.2022 in terms of well settled power granted under Order 3 Rule 1 to resolve
the impasse created by the obstructive/ delay tactics of filing multiple applications to
avoid filing WS within the stipulated 30 days.
3
6. That delay and obstruction of this Jus Cogens Peremptory Norms case filed on
28.01.2022 till 18.04.2022 is clearly at the hands of the six respondents, this Ld.
Court having passed nearly daily more than 26 orders in this case since 28.01 .2022
besides the three orders passed by the appellate court in miscellaneous appeals.
7. That it is provided in Order 12 Rule 2 that "Either party may call upon the other
party to admit within seven days from the date of service of the notice any
document ... .. " and accordingly the defendants were served notice on 18.02.2022
itself to peruse the documents vide Form No. 9 at page 10 of the application dated
17.02.2022, but the defendants failed to carry out inspection from 18.02.2022 till the
closing date of22.02.2022. They have only themselves to blame as the plaintiffs are
now entitled to deemed admission, if so allowed by Ld. Court in terms of Order 12
Rule 2A.
8. That issues could be framed only if WS is filed and return is made so as to enable the
all important "first hearing" where this Ld. Court could apply the provisions of Order
10 Rule 1 as held in Para 6 of Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, 2011
(6) UJ (SC) 4202.
10. That this court may exercise its wise discretion, of course in accord with well settled
law as elucidated above, or otherwise in its wisdom, under Order 3 Rule 1, Order 12
Rule 2-A and Order 12 Rule 3-A, in aid of justice of the situation.
PRAYED ACCORDINGLY
Place: Gurugram
Date: 18.04.2022
Applicant/Petitioner
NEMO through Lt Col (Veteran) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurugram 122018
Mob: 9818768349, Email: manioberoi@gmail.com