ROOPINDER SINGH vs EMAAR MGF LTD & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 14.10.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 04.11.2025 + RFA(COMM) 389/2024 and CM APPL.21125/2025 ROOPINDER SINGH .....Appellant Through: Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advocate. versus EMAAR MGF LTD. & ORS ...Respondents Through: Mr. Arjun Jain, Ms. Anushree Narain, Mr. Naman Choula and Mr. Yamit Jetley, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. 1. The present appeal, filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 1 and Section 13 of the Commercial Act, 20152, impugns the Judgment dated 18.05.20243 passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-06, South- East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 4 , in CS (COMM) No. 194/2021 titled „Roopinder Singh vs. Emaar MGF Ltd. and Ors’. 2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Commercial Court 1 CPC 2 CC Act 3 Impugned Judgement 4 Commercial Court Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA RFA(COMM) 389/2024 Page 1 of 24 Signing Date:04.11.2025 17:27:09 dismissed the Appellant‟s application filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 19635, seeking exclusion of the period spent in bona fide prosecution of the matter before the courts lacking jurisdiction. Consequently, the learned Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, holding the same to be barred by limitation. BRIEF FACTS: 3. The Appellant had booked a commercial unit in the project titled “The Palm Square”, situated at Gurgaon, Haryana, being developed by the Respondents, in the year 2007, upon payment of a booking amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- through a cheque dated 25.10.2007. 4. Subsequently, by a letter dated 05.02.2008, the Appellant reque