NARESH SUKHDEV SINDHE vs SEEMA BAWEJA & ANR

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 03.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on:05.12.2025 + FAO 498/2017 NARESH SUKHDEV SINDHE .....Appellant Through: Mr. Karan Luthra, Mr. Yogesh Malik, Advocates. versus SEEMA BAWEJA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. S A Khan, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA JUDGMENT CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J. 1. The present Appeal under Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (the CPC) assails the correctness of the orders dated 19.10.2016 and 28.08.2017 in Civil Suit No. 609215/2016 on the file of the learned ADJ, West Delhi, Tis Hazari Courts.. The trial court, vide order dated Signature Not Verified FAO 498/2017 Page 1 of 8 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:05.12.2025 14:29:55 19.10.2016,dismissed the plaintiff/appellant’s suit for declaration and injunction for default. Thereafter, the application for restoration under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, along with application for condonation of delay was also dismissed by the trial courtvide order dated 28.08.2017. 2. In this appeal, the parties herein shall be referred to in the same rank as they are arrayed in the original suit. 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are as follows:- The suit was posted for arguments on the issue of maintainability on 19.10.2016. On the said date, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel was present in the court, even though the case was called multiple times. Hence, the trial court proceeded to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application for restoration under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, along with an application for condonation of delay, explaining that on the said day he was required to appear in a proceedings under Section 138 of the Negot