M/S SWADESHI DHAM vs M/S MABEL APPAREL PVT LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21st, August, 2025 + CM(M) 1566/2025, CM APPL. 51546/2025, CM APPL. 51547/2025 & CM APPL. 51661/2025 M/S SWADESHI DHAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Narander Kalra, Adv. versus M/S MABEL APPAREL PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.01.2025 whereby its three applications have been dismissed. These are under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Order IX Rule 7 CPC and under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. 3. The suit in question is a commercial suit and, despite the alleged service upon defendant, it never appeared before learned Trial Court and, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 25.01.2023. 4. Fact, however, remains that on 18.07.2023 i.e. after more than a period of six months when it was proceeded ex-parte, defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that there was no cause of action in the matter. 5. During pendency of the abovesaid application, he moved another application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC praying therein that the ex-parte order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1566/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:23.08.2025 15:29:48 be set aside and in support of such its prayer, it also moved an application seeking condonation of delay. 6. In its application moved under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, defendant contended that the summons were sent to its old address and it was actually never received by it. As per impugned order, one Mr. Sunil Vohra was found available at the address of the defendant, who telephonically contacted the defendant and, thereafter, accepted the summons. 7. According to defendant, said Mr. Sunil Vohra never