PREM NATH SARUP (EXPORTS) PVT LTD vs SUMIT AGARWAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 19th May, 2025 + CM(M) 925/2025 & CM APPL. 30271/2025 PREM NATH SARUP (EXPORTS) PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mehul Gupta, ADvocate (Through VC) versus SUMIT AGARWAL .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) CM APPL. 30271/2025 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 925/2025 1. Petitioner had filed a suit which was commercial in nature. 2. When such suit was taken up by the learned Commercial Court on 11.07.2023, suit was dismissed on account of non –appearance from the side of petitioner 3. Petitioner sought restoration of the aforesaid suit by moving an application. 4. Admittedly, such application has been moved on 05.03.2025, after a delay of around 566 days. 5. Learned Trial Court, after extensive elaboration of the entire factual matrix, dismissed the aforesaid application. 6. Such order is under challenge. 7. Undoubtedly, since defendant had also not appeared before learned Trial Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 925/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:21.05.2025 11:40:27 Court, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 19.11.2022. However, merely because of the fact that defendant was ex parte, plaintiff cannot seek any special concession or privilege. 8. Suit was dismissed on 11.07.2023 and the learned Trial Court noticed that there was no appearance from the side of the plaintiff on earlier occasions i.e. on 25.04.2022, 28.09.2022, 07.01.2023 and 10.03.2023 and, resultantly, the suit was dismissed for non-appearance. 9. Impugned order records specific reasons as to why the plaintiff is not entitled to restoration of the suit. These are mentioned in Para-17 which reads as under: - “ 17. .