Disposed

M/S Aprajit Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Realtime Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Mar 2016RFA/67/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a reinstatement appeal filed by a plaintiff challenging the dismissal of her suit for money recovery. Finding the trial record incomplete and no respondent appearing to contest the refund of security deposit deposited for leave to defend, the Court ordered disposal allowing revival of the appeal only if respondents seek the amount within limitation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to apply for revival if respondents seek recovery of the security deposit within limitation.

M/S Aprajit Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Realtime Systems… — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RFA 67/2014 & CM No.3582/2014 (for stay)

¶4

M/S APRAJIT IMPEX PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhimanyu, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/S REALTIME SYSTEMS PVT LTD & ORS ..... Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 14.03.2016

¶11

The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 5^th December, 2013 of the court of Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandna, Additional District Judge (Central)-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi of dismissal of the suit being Civil Suit No.448/2009 bearing Unique ID No.02401C1194612008 for recovery of money filed by the appellant / plaintiff.

¶12

The suit was originally filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Only the respondents no.1 & 3 (Sh. Hemant chadha ) applied for leave to defend and which was refused and the suit decreed. However on the respondents no.1 & 3 appealing to this Court, vide consent order, leave to defend was granted to the respondents no.1 & 3 subject to their depositing a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- in the Trial Court and which was ordered to be released to the appellant / plaintiff unconditionally.

¶13

On remand also, only the respondents no.1 and 3 contested the suit and the respondent no.2 (Sh. Akhilesh Khare) was ex parte before the Trial Court.

¶14

RFA 67/2014

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

The respondents no.1 & 3 also though filed the written statement but thereafter stopped appearing and the appellant / plaintiff led ex parte evidence.

¶17

However the Trial Court as aforesaid dismissed the suit and has directed the appellant / plaintiff to refund the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondents.

¶18

Notice of this appeal was issued to the respondents and was ultimately ordered to be served by publication and none of the respondents appeared and were proceeded against ex parte on 14^th July, 2015.

¶19

Appeal was taken up today for hearing but it is found that the Trial Court record requisitioned in this Court is not complete; neither the plaint nor the documents on which the appellant / plaintiff in its ex parte evidence purported to put exhibit marks are found therein.

¶20

Rather than adjourning the matter to await the requisitioning of the balance trial court record, it is felt that since none is coming forward to take back the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- received by the appellant / plaintiff as aforesaid, this Court should not waste its time on a useless exercise.

¶21

The appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant / plaintiff to apply for revival if the respondents within limitation seek recovery of the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- so received by the appellant.

¶22

No costs.

¶23

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶24

MARCH 14, 2016 „gsr‟..

¶25

RFA 67/2014

¶26

Page 2 of 2

M/S Aprajit Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Realtime Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aprajit Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Realtime Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushma Devi Vs the Secretary (Home), the Administration of National Capital Territory & Ors.

Intermediaries and Investor Welfare Association of India Vs Union of India and Ors.

Daulat Ram Vs M/S Idbi Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Kanwar Pal & Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Suresh Babu Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Indian Statistical Institute Vs South Delhi Municiplal Corporation Assessment and Collection Department