Delhi High Court - Orders
Suresh Singh vs Gurvir Inder Singh @ Bulbul Singh on 12 January, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:13.01.2022 15:19:52
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. 24/2020
SURESH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Y.K. Kapur, Advocate.
versus
GURVIR INDER SINGH @ BULBUL SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 12.01.2022
1. This hearing has been done video conferencing.
2. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 15th October, 2019, passed by the Trial Court in M.No. 60883/2016 titled Suresh Singh v. Gurvir Inder Singh, by which the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed by the Respondent-Defendant (hereinafter "Defendant") was allowed. In effect, the ex-parte decree dated 25th September, 2009 which had been passed in favour of the Petitioner- Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") was set aside, execution proceedings filed by the Plaintiff were dismissed and 30 days time was granted to the Defendant to file his written statement in the matter.
3. This petition arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs.7,05,200/- filed by the Plaintiff in respect of his professional fee, as an Advocate. The suit itself being CS No.841/2008 (Old No.413/06) titled Sh. Suresh Singh v. Sh. Gurvir Inder Singh, was filed in 2006. For various reasons, the Defendant did not appear in the said suit, resulting in service through publication and finally, on 25th September, 2009, the suit was decreed ex-parte. In 2009, the execution proceedings pursuant to this decree were filed, being Ex. No. C.R.P. 24/2020 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:13.01.2022 15:19:52 24668/2016 titled Sh. Suresh Singh v. Sh. Gurvir Inder Singh. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed by the Defendant in 2014, seeking setting aside of the ex- parte decree, claiming he had only come to know of the said decree in April, 2014. Finally, the said application was allowed by the impugned order.
4. Mr. Kapur, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, points out that by the impugned order, after allowing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, 30 days time was granted to the Defendant to file the written statement. However, the written statement has only been filed now, with enormous delay. Therefore, he submits that the pendency of this revision petition should not result in further delay in adjudication of the suit, which is of 2006.
5. In view of the submissions made and after perusing the record, it is clear that the suit was filed in 2006 and has continued to remain pending for several years even after the decree was passed. Even in these proceedings today, none appears for the Defendant. As recorded in the order dated 8th July, 2021, the counsel for the Defendant in the Trial Court had been served and subsequently, on 17th September, 2021, the counsel for the Defendant had appeared before this Court. Despite this, none appears for the Defendant today.
6. The impugned order was passed in 2019 and more than two years have passed. At this stage, it would not be just and expedient to reverse the impugned order passed in an application under Order IX Rule 13. The Supreme Court has in its judgment dated 11th January, 2022 in Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel S.L.P (C) 13941/2021 held that in such orders, minimal interference ought to be made. This Court is of the opinion C.R.P. 24/2020 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:13.01.2022 15:19:52 that in order to avoid any further delay in the adjudication of the suit, the Trial Court ought to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The objections of the Plaintiff concerning the Defendants' delay in filing of the written statement, shall also now be considered by the Trial Court and appropriate orders shall be passed, in accordance with law. Needless to add, the Trial Court shall endeavor to expeditiously dispose of the suit and in any case, on or before 31st July, 2022.
7. The present revision petition is disposed of, in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the Court of Ld. ADJ-04, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in M. No. 60883/2016 and Ex. No. 24668/2016, and in CS No.841/2008 (Old No.413/06) all titled Suresh Singh v. Gurvir Inder Singh.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JANUARY 12, 2022 Rahul/MS C.R.P. 24/2020 Page 3 of 3