RAJ KUMAR vs KANAHIYA LAL AND ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16th July, 2025 + FAO 181/2025 & CM APPL. 41467-41469/2025 RAJ KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul, Mr. Rahul Kumar and Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Advs. versus KANAHIYA LAL AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The appellant challenges dismissal of his application moved under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’]. 2. This Court has gone through the impugned order dated 13.02.2025. 3. The learned Trial Court, while taking up the abovesaid application, in order to ensure that there is no prejudice to the applicant (appellant herein), framed issues even and permitted him to lead evidence. The applicant examined four witnesses in order to substantiate his assertions made in the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 4. The abovesaid application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the point of limitation as well as on merits. 5. The impugned order would clearly indicate that the applicant had examined four witnesses and if the applicant was having any reservation or grievance with respect to the alleged service of summons upon him, it is really intriguing to comprehend as to what stopped him from calling the concerned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO 181/2025 Page 1 of 3 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:18.07.2025 10:44:46 Process Server or, for that matter, the concerned Postman as his witness. 6. No steps, in this regard, seems to have been taken by the applicant, as is evident from Paragraph 12 of the impugned order, which reads as under: “12. Perusal of record reveals that as per report of process server dated 19.11.2022, the summons were served to the defendant throug