SURYA PRAKASH vs SMT KRISHNA GAUR

Judgment text excerpt

$~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2025 + FAO 200/2025 & CM APPL. 43702-43703/2025 SURYA PRAKASH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Suresh Chandra Sharma and Mr. Sandeep K Mishra, Advocates. versus SMT KRISHNA GAUR .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Appellant takes exception to order dated 22.01.2025 whereby his application moved under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 2. The case of the appellant is to the effect that he did not receive any summons and never came to know about the suit in question when it was pending. 3. The suit in question was instituted on 04.03.2020 and the judgment has been delivered on 13.04.2022. 4. The plaintiff was seeking possession, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits. 5. According to him, the suit property had been leased out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.16,500/- and despite expiry of lease agreement, which expired on 24.09.2018, the possession was not handed over Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO 200/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:25.07.2025 12:06:23 and, rather, the defendant locked the premises and stopped paying rent of the suit property and it was in the abovesaid backdrop that he was compelled to file the abovesaid suit, after serving legal notice dated 27.11.2019. 6. The observations appearing in the judgment dated 13.04.2022 would indicate that despite service by way of publication, there was no appearance from the side of the defendant and, resultantly, the ex-parte decree was passed against him. 7. According to the appellant, he had never received any notice/summons from the Court and, therefore, his non-appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate. 8. The appli