VIVEK SHARMA vs SAMEER DHIMAN

Judgment text excerpt

$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 + RFA 71/2025, CM APPL. 5182/2025 (stay), 5184/2025 & 5183/2025 VIVEK SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anit Kumar and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocates. versus SAMEER DHIMAN .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. The appellant has assailed order dated 06.11.2024 and the consequent decree for recovery of money passed in the suit under Order XXXVII CPC. I have heard learned counsel for appellant and examined the records, but find no merit in the appeal to even issue a notice to the other side. 2. Briefly stated, the circumstances as follows. The present respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs.23,00,000/- under Order XXXVII CPC. After hearing both sides on the issue of grant of leave to RFA 71/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.01.28 17:32:12 -08'00' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:28.01.2025 18:27:54 defend, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.04.2024 granted the appellant leave to defend subject to the appellant depositing 20% of the suit amount in Court as security in favour of the present respondent. The said order dated 22.04.2024 was accepted by the appellant and not challenged. But the amount of 20% of the suit amount, deposit whereof was the condition precedent to grant of leave to defend, was not deposited in court by the appellant. That ultimately led to the impugned o