SUMANT RAI DEEWAN vs M/S INDIAN HANDICRAFTS & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 22nd April, 2025 + FAO 461/2018 and CM APPL. 40605/2018 SUMANT RAI DEEWAN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and Ms. Shalini Sharma, Advs. versus M/S INDIAN HANDICRAFTS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. N.P. Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL) 1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties present and upon perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to decide the present appeal preferred by the appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”], whereby the impugned order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi [“Trial Court”], dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC in a pending suit is assailed. 2. In a nutshell, a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,88,813/- along with pendente lite and future interest was filed on behalf of partnership firm viz. M/s. Concept Clothing acting through its Partner/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gayatri Deewan, against the respondent/defendants, which was instituted on 02.01.2010. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, an Signature Not Verified FAO 461/2018 Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 1 of 3 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:23.04.2025 17:07:41 application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC was moved on behalf of the appellant, who is the husband of the earlier partner, Ms. Gayatri Deewan, that the firm had been dissolved and the entire assets, properties and liabilities of the partnership firm have been taken over by M/s. Concept Clothing as the sole proprietorship concern of the appellant, in terms of the dissolution deed dated 31.12.2010. The said application came to be