UMESH PRASAD SINGH vs HITESH BHARDWAJ

Judgment text excerpt

$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 + C.R.P. 220/2025 & CM Appl. 45665/2025 UMESH PRASAD SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shyamal Kumar and Ms. Apoorva Pal, Advs. versus HITESH BHARDWAJ .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM Appl. 45666/2025[Exemption from filing certified copies] 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 220/2025 & CM Appl. 45665/2025[Stay] 3. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] impugning the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-01, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been dismissed. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Impugned Order is bereft of any finding. However, a perusal of the Application that has been filed by the Petitioner/Defendant reflects that the Application only states that a cheque dated 04.03.2020 was presented for encashment on 09.03.2020 and the same Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.08.2025 C.R.P. 220/2025 Page 1 of 3 19:31:31 was dishonored on 10.03.2020 and thus, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Application contains only these averments. He has explained it further in his written statement. The written statement is, however, not on record neither do they form part of the pleadings before this Court. 6. It is settled law that in an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, all that is required to be ex