MALKIT SINGH vs JARNAIL SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 08.12.2025 + FAO 258/2019 & CM APPLs. 29301/2019, 50343/2019 & 53452/2019 MALKIT SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. K.S. Sharma, Advocate Versus JARNAIL SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Chirag Jain, Mr. Parth Mehra and Mr. Harshil Gupta, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J. 1. The present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC) has been filed by the applicant/defendant, in case bearing No. M-130/18 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, aggrieved by order dated 01.05.2019 by which his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. Signature Not Verified Signed By:KOMAL FAO 258/2019 Page 1 DHAWAN Signing Date:10.12.2025 11:45:26 2. In the application it was alleged, that the applicant/defendant had not received summons in the suit and that he became aware of the decree only upon the receipt of notice in the execution petition. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the summons issued to the defendant had been refused by him and that he had knowledge of the decree as early as on 31.05.2018, thereby rendering false his allegation that he came to know about the ex-parte decree only upon the receipt of the notice in the execution petition. Aggrieved by the order, the defendant has come up in appeal. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the cheque forming the basis of the suit was misused by the respondent/plaintiff; that the appellant/defendant had never engaged a lawyer and consequently, he was unaware of the pendency of the proceeding