KRISHAN LAL @ RAJ SUNEJA vs SURINDER MOHAN JINDAL

Judgment text excerpt

$-4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19th August 2025 + FAO (COMM) 213/2025 & CM APPL. 47671/2025, CM APPL. 47673/2025 KRISHAN LAL @ RAJ SUNEJA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Mr. Siddharth Mullick, Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Lakhan Gupta, Advs. with appellant in person. versus SURINDER MOHAN JINDAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Archit Singhal, Ms. Ritu Jain and Ms. Shubhangi Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J. 1. Heard the respective counsels. 2. The challenge in the present proceedings is to the impugned order dated 19th July, 2025, passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court)- 05, West, Delhi in Case No. MiscDJ/610/2025 titled as “Surinder Mohan Jindal Vs. Krishan LaL @ Raj Suneja”. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV FAO (COMM) 213/2025 Page 1 of 12 Signing Date:22.08.2025 10:35:09 3. The aforesaid order was passed by the District Judge in exercise of powers under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”), whereby the prayer of the present appellant (original defendant/Judgement Debtor) for setting aside the ex parte decree came to be dismissed. 4. The facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are that the respondent (original plaintiff/Decree Holder) initiated proceedings for recovery of Rs.1,01,97,217/- based on business transaction. 5. Summons were issued on 4th September, 2024 and served on 13th September, 2024. It is alleged that the appellant/defendant engaged a lawyer, Mr. Vivek Luthra, who was related to him, and after handing over the papers to the said lawyer, sought additional documents as the documents received were illegible. It appears that in the interregnum the said lawyer failed