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. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for possession as well as damages/mesne profits. 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. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for possession as well as damages/mesne profits. In the application dated 12th December, 2005, filed by the petitioner before the trial court it is averred that on 6th September, 2005 at about 9 a. m. one Mr. Gandharv Saini, Sanjay Daksh, Bhupinder Bagla, mr. I. N. Tiwari, Mr. Shailender Gupta, Shukunta Saini Raju came to the residence of petitioner and threatened her of dire consequences if she failed to return the money. The petitioner denied having taken the money from the above-said persons. On enquiry, it transpired that on the basis of the authority letter in the name of her son, Mr. Ajay Sharma, he had entered into a licence-cum-supervisory agreement on 4th June with Juice Zone India to grant licence for opening an outlet in the part of premises bearing No. P-4, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Mr. Sanjay Daksh and Mr. Bhupinder Bagle also informed that they had paid Rs. 2. 40 lakhs to Mr. Ajay Sharma. She was also apprised of the fact that Mr. Sanjay Daksh and Mr. Bhupinder Bagla had filed a criminal case against her, Mr. Ajay Sharma, mrs. V. V. Gujral and her daughter, who are landladies of the premises bearing No. P-4, Connaught Place, New Delhi and had also filed a suit for recovery for illegal use of premises P-4, Connaught Place, New Delhi. She also came to know that Ajay Sharma was contesting all the cases on her behalf and signed all the documents, including the power of attorney and the vakalatnama on her behalf and forged her signatures. ( 5 ) THE trial court vide its order dated 7th September, 2007 had dismissed both the applications dated 8th October, 2005 and 12th December, 2005 moved by the petitioner and fixed the case for final arguments on 12th October, 2007. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that under the circumstances the petitioner may be allowed to file a written statement before the trial court. ( 7 ) FOR the following reasons, I am unable to locate substance in these arguments. To top it all, the petitioner was served in accordance with law. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that under the circumstances the petitioner may be allowed to file a written statement before the trial court. ( 7 ) FOR the following reasons, I am unable to locate substance in these arguments. To top it all, the petitioner was served in accordance with law. Her summons were received by her son. The story coming out from the affidavit of mukesh Sharma is not worthy of credence. It appears to have been made out of whole cloth. When summons were received from the Court, it was the bounden duty of Mukesh Sharma to hand over the requisite papers of utmost importance to his mother. His explanations that he kept the summons in open shelf, although, he did not have cordial relations with his brother, yet, he attended his marriage, therefore, he accepted his summons as well, and that he could not locate his mother at the most crucial time are nothing but a ruse to make sure that his mother somehow succeeds in getting another opportunity from the Court. It is difficult to fathom where did the summons vanish thereafter. The above-said story does not just stack up. ( 8 ) SECONDLY, the record reveals that a joint written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was the duty of the advocate of smt. Pushpa Sharma, petitioner, to ensure that the vakalatnama, written statement, etc. were signed by her. There is no inkling on the evidence on record that the complaint was filed against the concerned Advocate as well, before the police ( 9 ) MOREOVER, the filing of complaint with the Police appears to be just an eye-wash. The petitioner has not taken any action against her son, Ajay Sharma. Even the FIR has not been registered. If the petitioner was serious, she would have taken effective steps in pursuing the complaint against her son. In case the Police did not initiate any action on that complaint, she should have filed a private complaint. ( 10 ) THE petitioner was served on 14th February, 2004 The present applications were moved before the trial court on 8th October, 2005 and 12th december, 2005, that is, after the expiry of one year and five months from the date of service. These applications were filed when the case was reaching its final stage. ( 10 ) THE petitioner was served on 14th February, 2004 The present applications were moved before the trial court on 8th October, 2005 and 12th december, 2005, that is, after the expiry of one year and five months from the date of service. These applications were filed when the case was reaching its final stage. It is also surprising to note that counsel for the petitioner could not tell the whereabouts of Ajay Sharma. The apprehension of the Court is that Ajay Sharma is residing with her mother. When an enquiry was made during the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner refused to disclose the whereabouts of Ajay Sharma and did not make a specific reply whether he is still living with her mother. From the pleadings of the petitioner itself it appears that she is working in cahoots with her son Ajay Sharma. ( 11 ) SUCCINCTLY stated this is too feeble an excuse to be taken seriously. The petition is without merit. The same is dismissed in limine. The application also stands dismissed.