MS. NAINA HARPALANI vs RAVI KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 02nd July, 2025 + CM(M) 3768/2024, CM APPL. 64761/2024 & CM APPL. 21097/2025 MS. NAINA HARPALANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Garg, Ms. Mustafa Alam, Mr. Ankit Gupta, Mr. Dev Kumar and Mukesh Kumar Yadav, Advocates along with petitioner in person. versus RAVI KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Kr. Jain, Advocate (Through VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner, who is defending a summary suit, is aggrieved by dismissal of her application moved under Order XXXVII Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The grievance of the petitioner/defendant is, merely, limited to the effect that she was never served with summons for judgment and her oral acceptance in this regard before the learned Trial Court has no legal sanctity. 3. Admittedly, when the abovesaid summary suit was filed by the plaintiff, the defendant was duly served with the summons on 12.08.2022. Defendant even filed appearance before the learned Trial Court along with Vakalatnama of her counsel. 4. On 22.08.2022, the plaintiff had sought some time to apply for issuance of summons for judgment and the matter was thereafter adjourned for 17.10.2022. It was, again, adjourned as the plaintiff had not taken any step for issuance of summons for judgment. 5. When the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 12.01.2023, the summons for judgment received unexecuted with the report that no such lady Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 3768/2024 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:02.07.2025 17:35:07 was residing at the given address. The order sheet dated 12.01.2023 reads as under:- “Present: Sh. Rahul Baijal, ld counsel for plaintiff. Summons for judgment sent to the defendant at the address fu