Delhi High Court
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs M/S Winneer Construction Pvt Ltd on 21 December, 2022
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005780
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.12.2022
+ CM(M) 754/2018 and CM APP No. 26912/2018
M/S ICICI BANK LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
M/S WINNER CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Chetna Bhalla and Mr. Kartik Bhalla,
Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Ankur Mahindro, Mr. Shresth
Choudhary and Mr. Aditya K., Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 26.05.2018 whereby the
application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC) was dismissed on the ground of insufficient reasons to explain
non-appearance and delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule
7 CPC.
2. Learned Trial Court has examined the issue in detail and has
come to a firm conclusion that the Petitioner has not been able to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
15:35:14
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005780
explain the reasons for delay much less the sufficient cause for such
non-appearance.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that there
is no reason much less a justifiable reason for interfering with the
impugned order in as much as there is no material irregularity or
illegality committed by the Trial Court while passing the impugned
order.
4. Mr. Mahindro, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that
the impugned order is sustainable in law and may not be interfered with.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties and
is of the firm opinion that the application under Order IX Rule 7 of the
CPC need to be construed a little more liberally so as to ensure that the
lis between the parties is decided on merits rather than on technicalities.
The Court also is of the opinion that catena of judgments right from the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land
Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors., 1987 SCR (2) 387, have laid down
that such applications ought to be construed liberally and the parties
must be permitted to contest their cases on merits.
6. In that view of the matter, impugned order dated 26.05.2018 is
quashed and set aside subject to the Petitioner paying to the Respondent
costs of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks from today. Petitioner would be
deemed to have joined the proceedings on and from 11.03.2014 when
the Court had proceeded it exparte. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court
may proceed in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
15:35:14
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005780
7. With the aforesaid, the petition and the application filed herewith
are disposed of.
8. In view of the fact that the original suit is pending since
23.01.2013, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the learned
Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, not later than nine
months from the date of receipt of the order.
9. Though it is informed that suit is listed for consideration before
the learned Trial Court on 11.01.2023, written statement to be filed on
behalf of the Petitioner may be submitted to the Court with an advance
copy to the counsel for the Respondent on or before 30.01.2023 and the
same is directed to be taken on record.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DECEMBER 21, 2022/yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
15:35:14
