[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Babita & Anr vs Geeta on 8 December, 2025
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 08.12.2025
+ FAO 331/2025
BABITA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. K.S. Verma, Mr. Vipin Rana, Mr.
Vinay Panwar and Mr. Vishu Verma,
Advocates.
versus
GEETA .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
3. This is an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) filed by the applicants/defendants in
Misc. DJ 117/2025 on the file of the Court of the District Judge-
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 331/2025 Page 1
01, (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, aggrieved by the order
dated 04.11.2025, by which their application under Order IX Rule
13 CPC and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 (the Limitation Act) have been dismissed.
4. Initially, when the appeal came up before this Court on
28.11.2025, notice was issued to the respondent/plaintiff.
However, today, an application for stay of the execution
proceedings, being CM APPL. 77379/2025 has come up for
consideration. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants is
heard on the question of stay as well as the merits of the appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants submit
that two advocates engaged to represent the appellants/defendants
never appeared before the trial court, and therefore, the matter was
proceeded ex-parte. It is stated that the appellants/defendants, for
the first time, came to know about the ex-parte judgment only on
29.01.2025, when they received summons in the execution
petition. Thereafter, a new counsel was engaged, who inspected
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 331/2025 Page 2
the judicial file on 15.02.2025 and apprised them about the status
of the case.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellants/
defendants entered appearance on 23.03.2023, and their
appearance was also recorded on 19.09.2023. Therefore, the
allegation in the application that they came to know about the
decree only on receipt of the notice in the execution petition is
apparently false and incorrect.
7. In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the trial court refers
to the names of the two counsels who, according to the appellants/
defendants, were engaged to represent them but never appeared.
Therefore, the entire blame has been put on the said two advocates
stated to have been engaged. This practice of putting the entire
blame on the counsel concerned has been deprecated by the Apex
Court in Rajneesh Kumar vs. Ved Prakash, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3.
8. On going through the impugned order, I do not find any
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 331/2025 Page 3
reasons to either stay the execution proceeding or wait till notice is
served upon the respondent/plaintiff, as it is quite obvious from the
impugned order itself that no sufficient reason(s) have been shown
for setting aside the ex parte decree or to condone the delay.
9. I find no infirmity in the impugned order calling for an
interference by this Court.
10. In the result, the appeal sans merits is, thus, dismissed.
Application(s), if any, pending shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 08, 2025
kd/er
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 331/2025 Page 4
