VINOD GARG vs KAMLESH MEHTA ( SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21.04.2025 + FAO (COMM) 209/2024, CM APPL. 61580/2024 & CM APPL. 61582/2024 VINOD GARG .....Appellant Through: Mr. Chandan Mishra, Mr. Rajesh Kr. Pandit, Mr. Satinder Tiwari, Advocates. versus KAMLESH MEHTA ( SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kunal Srivastava, Advocate for LRs of Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The appellant [plaintiff] has filed the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, inter alia, impugning an order dated 23.04.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Commercial Court whereby the plaintiff’s application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] for restoration of the suit preferred by the plaintiff [being CS(COMM) 66/2020] captioned Vinod Garg v. Kamlesh Mehta, was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff had filed the afore-mentioned suit seeking a decree for recovery of ₹14,30,000/- along with interest as well as a decree for damages quantified at ₹36,54,398/-. The respondent [defendant] had leased a property described as entire ground floor of built up property bearing FAO (COMM) 209/2024 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:29.04.2025 16:30:16 address E-127, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi [suit property], admeasuring approximately 900 sq.ft. to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the term of the lease was nine years commencing from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2026 and the suit property was intended to be used for commercial purpose for running a café. The plaintiff paid an amount of ₹4,40,000/- as security deposit and agreed to pay the rent of ₹1,10,000/- per month with periodic escalation. The