VIRENDER KUMAR vs ASHOK KUMAR BAJAJ

Judgment text excerpt

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 05th August, 2025 + CM(M) 997/2021 & CM APPL. 39831/2021 VIRENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Savinder Singh and Ms. Barnali Mukherjee, Advocates versus ASHOK KUMAR BAJAJ .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Parihaar, Advocate (Through VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 12.10.2021 passed by learned First Appellate Court whereby his appeal has been dismissed on the point of limitation. 2. Let me narrate some relevant facts. 3. A suit was filed against the petitioner herein, which was decreed, ex parte, vide order dated 15.07.2016. 4. Stand of the petitioner (defendant before the learned Trial Court) is to the effect that he was never served with the summons and, therefore, the decree was passed behind his back, which violated the principles of natural justice. He, accordingly, filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 5. When the aforesaid application was taken up by the learned Civil Judge, North-West, Rohini Courts, it took note of the fact that he learnt about the ex parte decree in question on 28.10.2017, when he had received “warrants of attachment” wherein he even stated to the Bailiff that he would settle the matter before the next date of hearing. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 997/2021 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:07.08.2025 11:02:27 6. Fact remains that application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed by him on 23.02.2018, which was beyond the period of limitation. 7. Learned Trial Court, keeping in mind the aforesaid delay which according to learned Trial Court had not been explained satisfactorily, refused to condone the delay and, resultantly, the application filed by the defendant under Se