Allowed

Rajat Dilwali v. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr.

Delhi HC3 Oct 2024FAO(OS)/137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed an appeal challenging the dismissal of an application under Order XXXVII CPC for a decree in default. The court held that the failure to file a memo of appearance precluded strict proof of service, as no negligence could be imputed to the defendants.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and the underlying application were dismissed.

Rajat Dilwali Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr. — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 137/2024 & C.M.No.58002/2024 RAJAT DILWALI .....Appellant

¶4

Through: Mr.Raghav Kacker with Mr.Aayush Shukla, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAJESH KUMAR SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None

¶7

% Date of Decision: 03^rd October, 2024

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶11

Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 05^th August, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No. 18146 / 2022 in CS(OS) No. 616 / 2022. The underlying summary suit was filed by the Appellant (Plaintiff therein) seeking recovery of an alleged loan amount from the Respondents.

¶12

The Appellant had filed the aforesaid IA in the subject suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) seeking a decree in default against the Defendants therein. The ground raised by the Appellant therein was that the advocate, Mr. Girijesh Pandey, had appeared on behalf of the Defendants/Respondents

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:04.10.2024 19:28:18

¶15

FAO (OS) 137/2024

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

before the Joint Registrar on the hearing held on 18^th October, 2022 and accepted summons; however, he failed to file the memo of appearance within the time period of ten days, as mandated by Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) of the CPC.

¶18

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the IA on the ground that that the advocate, Mr. Girijesh Pandey, after entering appearance in the Court during the hearing held on 18^th October, 2022 and accepting summons on behalf of the Defendants had failed to file his Vakalatnama or memo of appearance as required under Order III CPC and Chapter V Rule 1 of the DHC Rules and therefore, merely entering appearance could not be considered as sufficient service of summons on the Defendants/Respondents.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the learned Single Judge has erred by not considering that the advocate, Mr. Girijesh Pandey had in his affidavit dated 09^th January, 2023 (filed in I.A. No. 21526 / 2022 in the subject suit) expressly stated he had been authorized by the Respondents (Defendants therein) to accept summons on their behalf.

¶20

He states that the suit was served in advance to the Defendants/Respondents on 23^rd September 2022. He contends that the Respondents/Defendants had not provided any explanation, as to how the advocate, Mr. Vijay Tiwari, forwarded the Plaint to Mr. Pandey, when the Respondents/Defendants had themselves disputed forwarding the copy of the Plaint to Mr. Vijay Tiwari vide their reply dated 14^th April, 2023 filed in response to the application for interrogatories (IA No. 4123 / 2023) dated 27^th February, 2023.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:04.10.2024 19:28:18

¶23

FAO (OS) 137/2024

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Learned counsel for the Appellant relies upon Order XXXVII Rule 3 (7) CPC as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Basawaraj & Anr. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 , wherein it has been held as under:-

¶26

“11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 SCC 535 and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, (2002) 3 SCC 195)”

¶27

Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge after considering all averments and documents placed on record, has held as under:-

¶28

(a) Not filing of a memo of appearance as per Order XXXVII CPC can have drastic consequences and therefore, the Court must satisfy itself with respect to strict compliance of service of summons.

¶29

(b) Learned counsel for the Appellant had himself admitted that Mr.Girijesh Pandey had not filed any v akalatnama or memo of appearance after recording appearance on 18^th October, 2022. Therefore, the engagement of Mr. Girijesh Pandey as a pleader on 18^th October, 2022 has not been strictly proved. In such a case, the Appellant (Plaintiff therein) ought to have applied for issuance of summons to the Defendants under Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) CPC.

¶30

(c) From a prima facie perusal of the affidavit of Mr. Girijesh Pandey and the whatsapp communication between him and Mr. Tiwari, it does not appear that Mr. Pandey was expressly requested to appear on 18^th October, 2022 before the learned Joint Registrar. (It is clarified

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:04.10.2024 19:28:18

¶33

FAO (OS) 137/2024

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the veracity of the affidavit)

¶36

(d) It is not in dispute that the Respondents/Defendants after being served with the Court notice promptly entered appearance and filed I.A. 22178/2022 seeking leave to defend.

¶37

(e) As no substantive document has been shown to prove that Mr. Girijesh Pandey was appointed as a pleader by the Respondents/Defendants to appear before the learned Joint Registrar on 18^th October, 2022, it cannot be said that summons were strictly served upon the Defendants therein.

¶38

This Court is in respectful agreement with the aforesaid findings.

¶39

Further, as no negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides can be imputed to the Respondents/Defendants, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Basawaraj & Anr. (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case.

¶40

Accordingly, the present appeal along with the application is dismissed.

¶41

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶43

OCTOBER 3, 2024 KA

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:04.10.2024 19:28:18

¶46

FAO (OS) 137/2024

¶47

Page 4 of 4

Rajat Dilwali v. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Dilwali v. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Chander Suneja Vs Subhash Chander Suneja & Ors.

Saneh Kumar Mittal and Ors. Vs Sadhna Gupta

Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited Vs Col Ashish Khanna Sm Retd & Ors.

Naveen Kumar Vs Sh Gaurav Bhatia and Ors.

Smt. Harpyari ( Deceased) through LR-1A Bharat Bhushan Sharma Vs Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society and Ors.

Smt.Harpyari (Deceased) through (LR-1B) Brij Bhushan Sharma Vs Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society and Ors.

Sangeeta Chhabra & Ors. Vs Sumit Chhabra

Smt. Sumita Marwah Vs Mr. Vikas Vij & Ors.

Ms Naagar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Mak Control and Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs Lt. Col Hardeep Singh Bedi & Anr.

Shyam Babu Gupta Vs the Union of India & Ors.

M/S Navansh Engineers and Consultants Vs Union of India

Master Eklavya Kochhar & Ors. Vs Bal Bharati Public School & Ors.