M/S HI TECH CONSTRUCATIONS ENGINEERS & BUILDERS vs M/S KUBER BUILDER (A UNIT OF KUBER GROUP)

Judgment text excerpt

$~11&12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 14th August, 2025 + CM(M) 744/2018 M/S HI TECH CONSTRUCATIONS ENGINEERS & BUILDERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate. versus M/S KUBER BUILDER (A UNIT OF KUBER GROUP) .....Respondent Through: None. + CM(M) 747/2018 M/S HI TECH CONSTURCTIONS ENGINEERS & BUILDERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate. versus M/S R.K BUILDER (A UNIT OF KUBER GROUP) .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The point raised in both the abovesaid petitions is identical and, therefore, these are being taken up together. 2. Petitioner had decree(s) in their favour and armed with those, they filed separate execution petitions which were registered as Ex. No 75/2005 and Ex. No. 76/2005. 3. These Execution Petitions were, however, not pursued in the desired CM(M) 744/2018 and CM(M) 747/2018 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:18.08.2025 18:00:27 manner and were, resultantly, dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.01.2010. 4. After around seven years, the decree holders moved applications seeking restoration thereof and along with restoration applications, they also moved application(s) under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay. 5. The sole reason assigned in the abovesaid applications, whereby they were seeking condonation of delay, was to the effect that neither the decree holder nor their counsel could appear before the learned Executing Court when the matter was called on said date and that their non-appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was also mentioned that the Execution Petitions had been transferred and, somehow, decree holder never learnt about such transf