SUNDEEP KUMAR VERMA vs ARCHANA SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 16.04.2025 + C.R.P. 111/2025 SUNDEEP KUMAR VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Parisha Vishnoi, Mr. Arjun and Ms. Aashish Kumar Sagar, Advs. versus ARCHANA SINGH .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the order dated 21.01.2025 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned District Judge-04, Patiala House Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC which was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff seeking restoration of the suit as well as accompanying Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration have been allowed. 2. The Respondent/Plaintiff had filed a suit for damages before the learned Trial Court. The Respondent/Plaintiff did not appear before the learned Trial Court for hearing and subsequently by an order dated 02.07.2024, the suit was dismissed in default and on account of non-appearance. 3. The Application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff seeking restoration of the suit. The ground for seeking Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 111/2025 Page 1 of 2 By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:19.04.2025 19:36:25 restoration were two-fold. Firstly, that there was incessant rain and the Respondent/Plaintiff was also not feeling well on that date, hence she could not appear before the Court on 02.07.2024. Secondly, it was stated that as far as the Counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff is concerned, on account of connectivity issues on the date of hearing, there was no appearance o