MS KAMLA BHEL CO PVT LTD vs SMT SUNITA MEHTA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 07.11.2025 + W.P.(C) 11145/2020 MS KAMLA BHEL CO PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Yadav and Ms. Bhavika Kohli, Advocates versus SMT SUNITA MEHTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh and Ms. Bharti Yadav, Advocates for R-2 & R-3 Mr. Shekhar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J. CM APPL 10258/2025 (for Restoration) CM APPL 10259/2025 (delay) CM APPL 26757/2025 (for release of the amount) 1. CM APPL 10258/2025 has been filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the petitioner seeking restoration of the aforesaid writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 07.03.2024. This application has been filed Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJ BALA W.P.(C) 11145/2020 Page 1 Signing Date:11.11.2025 16:26:04 along with CM APPL 10259/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 347 days in filing the restoration application. 2. In the application for condonation of delay, the allegation is that the non-appearance of the petitioner was neither wilful nor deliberate, but was solely attributable to the gross negligence and professional misconduct of the counsel earlier engaged by him. The earlier counsel had not only misrepresented facts, but had also extracted substantial legal fees claiming to be diligently prosecuting the case. The petitioner was never informed about the dismissal of the writ petition. There is no deliberate laches on the part of the petitioner who has acted diligently on discovering the dismissal of the writ petition and has approached the Court seeking restoration. 3. The application is opposed by respondent No. 1 who has filed a reply contending that there are no bona fides in the petitio