THE DESIGN VILLAGE FOUNDATION vs MS TULIKA VAISH

Judgment text excerpt

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 + CM(M) 1860/2025 & CM APPL. 59955/2025 THE DESIGN VILLAGE FOUNDATION .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Gurmeet Bindla, Advocate. versus MS TULIKA VAISH .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA ORDER (ORAL) 1. Petitioner has assailed order dated 13.08.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby it was held that the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXVII CPC has to be treated as an ordinary suit for money recovery. 2. Since summons in the suit are yet to be ordered, there is no need to issue notice of this petition. 3. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order is totally devoid of reason and discussion, so not sustainable. For convenience, the relevant portion of the impugned order is CM(M) 1860/2025 Page 1 of 2 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Signature Not Verified GIRISH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15 Digitally Signed 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e 26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.22 17:58:31 -07'00' By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:22.09.2025 18:08:21 extracted below: “Validity of the agreement is in doubt and so the suit is treated as an ordinary recovery suit. The plaintiff is directed to file amended plaint by deleting the words ‘Order 37 CPC’ and ‘summary suit’ in the plaint wherever they are appearing”. 4. There is no discussion at all in the impugned order as to why the learned trial court considers the validity of the agreement in question to be doubtful. Since the impugned order is devoid of