AMEET SINGH LONGANI vs SATPAL BHASIN AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 27.04.2026 + FAO (COMM) 119/2026, CM APPL. 27496/2026 and CM APPL. 27497/2026 AMEET SINGH LONGANI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Munish Chhoker and Ms. Jyoti Verma, Advs. versus SATPAL BHASIN AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Bhuveneshar Tyagi, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Rohit Aggarwal, Adv. for R-2 and R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.: 1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant (Plaintiff before the Court of First Instance) assailing the correctness of Order dated 05.02.2026 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the Learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘LDJ’], vide which the application filed by the Appellant seeking restoration of his suit for specific performance to its original number came to be dismissed. 2. Pithily put, the Appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract which was listed for hearing of applications under Order VII Rule 11 and Order XII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 25.09.2025. On the said date, owing to the Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:29.04.2026FAO (COMM) 119/2026 Page 1 of 3 15:21:13 absence of the Appellant, the suit was dismissed in default. 3. Thereafter, the Appellant within the prescribed period of 30 days, preferred an application for restoration, on two primary grounds, firstly, that he was in the process of engaging new counsel in substitution of his previous advocate, which could not be finalized prior to the said date; and secondly, that although he intended to join the proceedings through virtual mode, being stationed in London, United