Dismissed

M/S Swadeshi Dham v. M/S Mabel Apparel Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC21 Aug 2025CM(M)/1566/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A defendant who filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was deemed to have knowledge of the suit and a copy of the plaint; its Order IX Rule 7 CPC application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order was filed beyond the permissible 120-day period. Following SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Court held the written-statement timeline is inflexible and rejection of an Order VII Rule 11 application cannot be used to retrieve lost opportunity to file the written statement. Petition dismissed in limine.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Swadeshi Dham Vs M/S Mabel Apparel Pvt. Ltd. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~101

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 21^st , August, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1566/2025, CM APPL. 51546/2025, CM APPL. 51547/2025 & CM APPL. 51661/2025

¶5

M/S SWADESHI DHAM .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Narander Kalra, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

M/S MABEL APPAREL PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: None.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.01.2025 whereby its three applications have been dismissed. These are under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Order IX Rule 7 CPC and under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

¶11

The facts lie in a very narrow compass.

¶12

The suit in question is a commercial suit and, despite the alleged service upon defendant, it never appeared before learned Trial Court and, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 25.01.2023.

¶13

Fact, however, remains that on 18.07.2023 i.e. after more than a period of six months when it was proceeded ex-parte , defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that there was no cause of action in the matter.

¶14

During pendency of the abovesaid application, he moved another application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC praying therein that the ex-parte order

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

CM(M) 1566/2025

¶17

¶18

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 3.08.2025 15:29:48

¶19

be set aside and in support of such its prayer, it also moved an application seeking condonation of delay.

¶20

In its application moved under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, defendant contended that the summons were sent to its old address and it was actually never received by it. As per impugned order, one Mr. Sunil Vohra was found available at the address of the defendant, who telephonically contacted the defendant and, thereafter, accepted the summons.

¶21

According to defendant, said Mr. Sunil Vohra never contacted him on phone.

¶22

However, fact remains that defendant never bothered to divulge as to when and how, it learnt about the suit in question. Since it had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it has to be, necessarily, assumed that it was already having the copy of the plaint. Obviously, without having copy of plaint and without knowing as to what has been averred in the plaint, no applicant can file any application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, complaining that the suit in question has been filed without cause of action . 9. Thus, even prior to 18.07.2023, the defendant was very much aware that a suit had been filed against it and it was also having the copy of plaint with it.

¶23

Despite above, for the reasons best known to it, the defendant never cared to participate in the proceedings of the suit and even the abovesaid application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was filed after the expiry of outer permissible limit of 120 days.

¶24

The law on this aspect is very clear.

¶25

The period prescribed for filing written statement is inflexible and reference in this regard be made to SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S.

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

CM(M) 1566/2025

¶28

¶29

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 3.08.2025 15:29:48

¶30

Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors : (2019) 12 SCC 210 . The same judgment while relying upon R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu & Anr : (2016) 14 SCC 275 also goes on to hold that rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be made as a ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement.

¶31