$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010355252026 + CM(M) 1721/2026 & CM APPL. 51100/2026 ANTARA ASSISTED CARE SERVICES LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arjun Mukherjee, Mr. Puneet Dhawan, Mr. Kartik Sharma, Advocates. versus GAUTAM SAXENA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kushank Sindhu, Mr. Dewansh Shukla and Ms. Vasavi Mahajan, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Baibhav, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 21.07.2026 by the learned Civil Judge–02 Shahadra, Karkardooma Courts in Civil Suit No. 314/2026. 2. The petitioner instituted the underlying civil suit seeking directions to the respondents to vacate the facilities of the petitioner and mandatory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession, occupation and the management of the petitioner’s facility. 3. The petitioner and respondent no. 1, on behalf of respondent no. 2 who is stated to be a dementia patient, executed a Medical Services Agreement dated 25.07.2025, whereby, the respondent no. 2 was provided a temporary license to occupy room no. 105 in the petitioner’s assisted living This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:16:09 facility. 4. It is stated that the respondent no. 1 repeatedly verbally abused the nurses and the staff in the petitioner’s facility, however, aggrieved by the continuous misconduct of respondent no. 1, the petitioner vide termination notice dated 16.01.2026 terminated the Medical Services Agreement, and directed vacation of the room in 7 days. It is stated that despite the termination, the respondents did not vacate the room, and hence the petitioner sent a vacation notice dated 08.03.2026 and approached the police for assistance on numerous occasions. 5. The petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking urgent reliefs and additionally seeking restraint on the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s facility. 6. The application is stated to have listed on numerous occasions before the learned trial court viz. 20.03.2026, 06.04.2026, 28.04.2026, 13.05.2026 and 30.05.2026. The learned trial court on 30.05.2026 reserved the matter for pronouncement of order on 09.07.2026, however, the order was not pronounced on the said date, and was renotified on 29.08.2026. 7. It is stated that the petitioner, due to the continuous aggressive conduct of the respondents during the subsisting period, was constrained to file an application under section 151 of the CPC seeking early pronouncement of the order reserved on 09.07.2026. 8. The learned trial court vide order dated 21.07.2026 cancelled the date already fixed of 29.08.2026 and directed the respondents to file a reply to the application seeking early pronouncement of the judgment. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:16:09 impugned order in essence not only renders the intent of the early hearing application otiose, but also by an extension, renders the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 nugatory. The impugned order by calling for a reply to a purely procedural application has in effect negated the urgency of the petitioner. 10. He further submits that the petitioner has displayed real urgency which in turn merits expeditious adjudication and decision. The petitioner submits that the respondent has created numerous obstructions, and has also harassed numerous staff of the petitioner’s facility. Thus, the impugned order which allows the respondents to occupy a room in the petitioner’s facility for a longer duration, is extremely prejudicial to the petitioner’s interests 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that this Court cannot be allowed to usurp or interfere with the proceedings before the learned trial court on account of such frivolous petitions. He submits that the jurisdiction of this Court in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is only to be exercised in cases of patent illegality and perversity, and the same is wholly inapplicable in the present case. 12. He further submits that the impugned order is purely a procedural order which only allows the respondents their right to reply to an application which may affect their interest. The impugned order which calls for a reply does not create any substantive alterations in the case, and thus, does not prejudice the petitioner. 13. Heard. Perused the records. 14. This Court is of the opinion that delayed adjudication is antithetic to the spirit of interim reliefs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, however, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:16:09 balance must also be struck with the respondent’s right to contest any application filed in their case. 15. Accordingly, this Court directs the learned trial court to expeditiously adjudicate and decide the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2, preferably on the next date of hearing. The parties are directed to not take any unnecessary adjournments. 16. The petitioner is thus allowed, and pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 17. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter. AJAY DIGPAUL, J AUGUST 6, 2026 Sk/sg This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:16:09