RESURRGENT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs STRUM BUILDCON PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09th April, 2025 + CM(M) 565/2025 & CM APPL. 17618-17621/2025 RESURRGENT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anupam Dwivedi and Mr. Umesh Dubey, Advocates versus STRUM BUILDCON PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) CM APPL. 17619-17620/2025 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 565/2025 & CM APPL. 17618/2025 & CM APPL. 17621/2025 1. None appears on behalf of the respondent despite advance notice. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is very short and precise. 3. Petitioner is defending a suit for recovery. 4. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, it was proceeded against ex parte and its one application moved under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was also dismissed. 5. Petitioner/defendant moved separate applications before the learned Trial Court. By virtue of first application, he sought setting aside of ex parte order, for which the relief has been granted to him by the learned Trial Court. However, with respect to the second application, whereby he was seeking restoration of its application moved under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, such Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 565/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:09.04.2025 20:43:18 request has been turned down for the reasons that such request cannot be entertained by moving an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner does admit that application had been moved under the wrong provision. He submits that earlier when the application moved under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 06.07.2022, there was no appearance from either of the sides and, the learned Trial Court, whi