PERPETUAL VISION LLP & ANR. vs VAIBHAV S PINGALE & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 316/2025 and CM APPLs. 69747-748/2025 PERPETUAL VISION LLP & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay, Mr. Naseem Sheikh, Mr. Rahul Singh, Ms Shubhangi Shaswat, Advocates versus VAIBHAV S PINGALE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 13.11.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is directed against the following order passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Saket. “03.11.2025 Present : Counsel for plaintiff, Sh. Naseem and Sh. Rahul Singh. Submission heard. Record perused. Summons of the suit as well as notice to the application U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC be issued to the defendants on taking steps within a week by all permissible modes including electronic mode, returnable by 19.11.2025. For service to be affected through electronic mode i.e. Whats App, e-mail address etc. of defendant, affidavit with regard to correctness of the same, be filed on record. Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 316/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 1 of 9 KUMAR Signing Date:14.11.2025 15:43:14 Further, it be specifically mentioned on the summons that this is a commercial suit and the defendant is required to file the written statement alongwith statement of truth and affidavit of admission and denial of documents within the mandatory period of 30 days of service.” 2. We have heard Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants at length on whether such an order would be appealable. 3. Mr. Upadhyay has, with all the persuasion at his command, attempted to convince us that the answer to the query has to be in the affirmative. He has placed reliance on t