RAJNISH GUPTA vs PUNEET SARANG

Judgment text excerpt

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 29th April, 2025 + CM(M) 781/2025 & CM APPL. 25383/2025 RAJNISH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anuj Jain, Advocate. versus PUNEET SARANG .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The grievance in the present petition is a very limited one. 2. According to petitioner/plaintiff, a suit under Order XXXVII CPC had been filed before the learned Trial Court. 3. Before any process could be issued, the plaintiff sought amendment in the suit and such amendment was allowed by the Court. Despite such amendment, the suit continued to be summary in nature. However, due to some oversight and inadvertence, summons for settlement of issues were, instead, directed to be issued, as if it was a regular suit. 4. Sh. Anuj Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, in all fairness, submits that such aspect even missed his attention and he, simply, deposited the process fee, without realizing that direction was to issue summons for settlement of issues. Clearly, the counsel should have been careful and should have drawn the attention of the Court to the above immediately. 5. It seems that though the summons were received back unserved, there Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 781/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:01.05.2025 12:30:24 was appearance from the side of defendant through video conferencing on 18.11.2024 and defendant was permitted to file written statement within 15 days, subject to cost. Fact remains that no written statement was ever filed by the defendant and it seems there was no appearance from the side of defendant on subsequent dates, even. 6. On 03.02.2025, when the matter was taken up by learned Trial Court, the plaintiff/peti