Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2066 (DEL)

Ankur Raheja v. Sada Ram Kadian

2014-08-01

VALMIKI J.MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : 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. 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 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. 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.