SANJAY SUSHIL BHOSALE vs YOGESH GUPTA

Judgment text excerpt

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 6th March, 2025 + FAO 52/2025 & CM APPL. 13619/2025 SANJAY SUSHIL BHOSALE .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Pipaniya, Ms. Pallavi Pipaniya, Mr. Gopesh Jindal, Mr. Paras Punyani, Ms. Nikita Garg, Mr. H.P.S. Anand, Mr. Lavish Chhikara, Mr. Deepak Mathur, Ms. Diksha Dharia and Mr. Aayush Rathor, Advs. versus YOGESH GUPTA ....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 13620/2025 – EXMP. 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. FAO 52/2025 & CM APPL. 13619/2025 3. The appellant/defendant has preferred the present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”] assailing impugned order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-03, Rohini Court, North District, Delhi [“trial Court”] whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated Signature Not Verified FAO 52/2025 Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 1 of 4 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:10.03.2025 20:27:00 11.11.2019 has been dismissed. 4. No one appeared for the respondent/plaintiff despite sending advance notice. 5. In a nutshell, the present suit was instituted by the respondent/ plaintiff in which due notice of the summons for settlement of issues was served upon the appellant/defendant so much so that he filed written statement. However, he failed to appear during the proceedings and was proceeded ex-parte and eventually ex-parte judgment-cum-decree dated 11.11.2019 came to be passed. 6. The appellant/defendant moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, whereby it was acknowledged that summons in the suit were serve