SUNIL RUSTAGI vs SIDDHARHT JAIN AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11.05.2026 + FAO 156/2026 SUNIL RUSTAGI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Garima Verma, Mr. Nikhil Goel, Ms. Arshia, Mr. Ujjwal and Mr. Vijay, Advocates. Versus SIDDHARHT JAIN AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harshit Vashisht, Mr. Shivdeep Kr., Ms. Bhavini Kapoor, and Mr. Shartak Tagra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGEMNT (ORAL) CM APPL. 31534/2026 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The present application is disposed of. CM APPL. 31532/2026 (delay) 1. By way of the present application, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 50 days in refiling the accompanying appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 50 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. Signature Not Verified FAO 156/2026 Pg. By:NIJAMUDDEEN 1 of 8Signed ANSARI Digitally Signing Date:18.05.2026 16:20:44 FAO 156/2026 & CM APPL. 31533/2026 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned DJ-04, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Misc. DJ No. 314/2024, whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed, the appellant/defendant no. 4 has preferred this appeal seeking the setting aside of the same. 2. It is contended that the impugned order fails to take into account that the appellant was never served in the underlying suit, and that the Trial Court misapplied the provisions of Order V Rule 20 CPC inasmuch as no affixation was carried out at the appellant‟s premises. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents seeks dismissal of the present appeal by contending that the Trial Court committed