The High Court allowed an appeal against dismissal of a suit for non-prosecution. Held, allowing the appeal in part, and setting aside the impugned order, the Court reduced costs and directed restoration of the suit subject to deposit of reduced costs.
Impugned judgment set aside; costs reduced to Rs. 2,000/-; suit restored pending deposit of reduced costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(COMM) 333/2024
MR ANKIT GARG .....APPELLANT
Through: Mr Jai Ram Garg with Mr Sandeep Singh Nainwal, Advocates.
versus
MR NARENDER .....RESPONDENT
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
CM APPL. 47411/2024
CM APPL. 47412/2024
RFA(COMM) 333/2024
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM)No.333/2024 Page 1 of 4
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:28:18
Court), North, Rohini, Delhi.
7.1 The impugned judgment and order records that on a previous occasion, summons issued to the respondent/defendant via RC was received back due to “insufficient address”.
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM)No.333/2024 Page 2 of 4
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:28:18
the address available with the appellant/plaintiff was furnished for effecting service on the respondent/defendant.
11.1 It is the submission of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the subject goods were supplied to the respondent/defendant at the address given for affecting service.
12.1 In support of the plea that the address provided is complete, counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has also drawn our attention to the “ certificate of non-starter report ” dated 31.08.2022 which, inter alia , alludes to the following message, i.e., “item returned as refused.”
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM)No.333/2024 Page 3 of 4
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:28:18
16.1 The appellant/plaintiff and/or his Advocate will remain present before the concerned trial court, at Rohini, on 11.09.2024. Thereupon, the trial court will take further steps in the matter.
16.2 Costs will be paid within next two (2) weeks.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
AUGUST 20, 2024 /tr
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM)No.333/2024 Page 4 of 4
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:28:18
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against dismissal of suit for non-prosecution due to failure to effect service and pay costs should succeed.
Whether costs imposed by the trial court should be reduced to allow the appellant another opportunity to effect service.
Whether the suit should be restored pending further steps by the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr Ankit Garg
Mr Narender
Rajiv Shakdher
Amit Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
A first appeal against a decree of a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
