Ankur Raheja vs Sada Ram Kadian
2014 Latest Caselaw 3475 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CM(M) 719/2014

%                                                           1st August, 2014

ANKUR RAHEJA                                              ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

SADA RAM KADIAN                                             ...... Respondent
                          Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.12275/2014 (exemption)

1.           Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

             C.M. stands disposed of.

+ C.M.(M) No.719/2014 and C.M. No.12274/2014 (stay)

2.           The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated

17.5.2014 by which the application of the petitioner/defendant under Order 9

Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking setting aside of the

exparte order dated 24.1.2013 was dismissed.
CM(M) 719/2014                                                      Page 1 of 3
 3.           Today, I have dismissed C.M.(M) No.717/2014 which was

challenging the order of imposition of costs for delayed filing of the written

statement in another suit filed by the same plaintiff/respondent against the

brother of the petitioner and which is at the stage of final arguments.

4.           A reading of the facts of the present case shows that the mother

of the petitioner refused to accept the summons on 22.10.2012 for 5.11.2012

and though on which date itself the trial court could have proceeded the

petitioner exparte, but, the trial court in the interest of justice ordered fresh

notices for 24.1.2013 with direction to affix the summons at the premises of

the defendant in case of refusal to accept and at which stage the mother of

the petitioner did not allow affixing of summons but received the summons.

The petitioner however failed to appear before the trial court on 24.1.2013,

as a result of which he was proceeded exparte.

5.           Trial court while dismissing the application observed that

statements are made that the petitioner came to know of the suit from the

neighbours but no details were given as to who were those neighbours who

told the petitioner of the suit and nor were any affidavits filed of the

neighbours. Also, it was stated that mother of the petitioner is suffering

from various ailments due to old age, however, no documents were filed to

prove this aspect, and this was required because the respondent/plaintiff had
CM(M) 719/2014                                                       Page 2 of 3
 stated that the mother is very active and in fact running business in the name

of PBR Super Market.

6.           During the course of hearing, I asked the counsel for the

petitioner as to what is the stage of the suit but counsel for the petitioner is

not able to answer the query of the Court.

7.           In view of the above, I do not find that the present is a fit case

to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

             Dismissed.




AUGUST 01, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne