NARESH KUMAR vs SHASHI KIRAN AMAR & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21th March, 2025 + CM(M) 533/2025 & CM APPL. 16690-16692/2025 NARESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Mr. Dhruv Chawla, Ms. Aditi Singhal and Ms. Shreya, Advocates. versus SHASHI KIRAN AMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Archana Jain and Mr. Arjav Jain, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Gautam Dhamija, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The petitioner has filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction. 2. Defendant No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte in terms of order dated 07.09.2022. 3. Subsequent to such order, she moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. Such application was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 11.11.2024 and was allowed. 4. The relevant portion of the abovesaid order reads as under: “ Law on the Order IX Rule 6 CPC has been succinctly summarized by our Hon'ble High Court in 'Lotus International vs Chaturbhujadas Kamani Textiles (P) Ltd.', 1996 SCC Online DEL Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 533/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:25.03.2025 09:47:03 876. In Para 23 of the judgment, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed: “(23). From the aforesaid rulings the following principles can be summarized. Where the Court has decided to proceed ex parte under Order 9 Rule 6 CPC, it means that it has merely decided to go ahead with the case in the absence of the defendant and the situation is not akin to one where an ex parte decree or order is passed against the defendant. The Court merely records in its minutes that it is proceeding forward in the absence of the defendant. If thereafter the Court has taken some steps in the trial, it is open to the defendant to come forward at a later stage and file an applic