SH ASHOK KUMAR vs SMT LAKSHITA CHANDEL

Judgment text excerpt

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 15.11.2025 + FAO 153/2024 & CM APPLs. 27039/2024, 12939/2025 SH ASHOK KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ghanshyam Thakur, Advocate alongwith appellant in person. Versus SMT LAKSHITA CHANDEL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Kumar and Mr. Govind Pareek, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J. 1. The present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC), assails the correctness of Annexure P-1 Order dated 05.04.2024, whereby the trial court dismissed the appellant’s/defendant’s application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC seeking setting aside of Annexure P-3 ex-parte decree dated 05.09.2023, as well as his application under Section 144 CPC, and thereby affirmed the ex- Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:19.11.2025 FAO 153/2024 Page 1 16:10:21 parte decree passed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC decreeing the plaintiff/respondent’s suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and injunction in respect of Shops No. C-238 and C-239, Sector-7, Punarwas Colony, Dwarka, New Delhi. 2. The facts relevant to the present appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit on 12.02.2023 alleging that the appellant/defendant was her tenant in the two suit shops and had defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant/defendant was served with summons on 17.03.2023 and entered appearance on 30.05.2023, when time to file the written statement was granted. Despite expiry of the statutory and extended periods, no written statement was filed. On 05.09.2023, the appellant/defendant remained absent, his right to file the written statement was closed, his defence was struck off, and the suit was de