Brij Bala Passi Vs Ramesh Passi and Others — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Brij Bala Passi Vs Ramesh Passi and Others — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: suit restored to its original number and position; parties to appear before the learned Trial Court/Successor Court on 20.09.2025; petitioner to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- in equal proportion to the defendants on 20.09.2025. Exemption application (CM APPL. 55228/2025) allowed subject to all just exceptions; stay application (CM APPL. 55227/2025) disposed of; hearing fixed for 04.12.2025 cancelled.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court acted appropriately in dismissing the entire suit for non-prosecution, merely because the plaintiff — out of India and unable to engage counsel — could not render due assistance for the disposal of the pending applications. +2 more

Court's answer

It was not appropriate for the learned Trial Court to have dismissed the entire suit for non-prosecution merely because the plaintiff could not render due assistance to the Court for the purposes of disposal of the pending applications; the dismissal aspect lay primarily between the plaintiff and the Trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

Even at a sitting fixed for arguments on pending applications, the Trial Court could have disposed of those applications on merits; there was, actually speaking, no point in dismissing the suit in toto for non-prosecution.

Key takeaways

Since the plaintiff had made a specific request, was out of India and had not been able to engage any counsel, the Court could have granted her some adjournment — albeit subject to certain cost or conditions — instead of dismissing the suit for non-prosecution.ratio¶29
The pending applications — the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and Mr. Dalbir Singh's application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment — could have been decided on the basis of material available in the record, instead of dismissing the suit for non-prosecution.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.), CM(M) 405/2025, 02.09.2025 (oral) — Restoration of suit dismissed for non-prosecution. The plaintiff's suit seeking declaration and injunction was dismissed in toto by the learned Trial Court on 22.08.2024 at a sitting fixed for arguments on pending applications — her application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and Mr. Dalbir Singh's impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC — because she, being out of India and having engaged no counsel, sought time till end-November. Holding such wholesale dismissal unwarranted, the Court found the Trial Court could have disposed of the pending applications on merits or decided them on the material available in the record, or granted the plaintiff an adjournment subject to certain cost or conditions. Accordingly the petition is allowed: the suit is restored to its original number and position, the parties are to appear before the Trial Court/Successor Court on 20.09.2025, and the petitioner bears a cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable in equal proportion to the defendants on that date. The interim application seeking a direction to stop construction activities in the suit property was not entertained, the suit lying dismissed; the hearing fixed for 04.12.2025 stands cancelled.

$~84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 02^nd September, 2025

- CM(M) 405/2025 BRIJ BALA PASSI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shirish Yaduvashi, Advocate. versus

RAMESH PASSI AND OTHERS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sahil Sharma, Advocate for R-1 and R-6.

C ORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

J U D G M E N T (oral)

CM APPL. 55228/2025 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM APPL. 55227/2025(stay)

Petitioner is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court.

The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.08.2024.

Such order is under challenge.

By virtue of the abovesaid application, the petitioner seeks a direction to her adversary to stop all construction activities going on in the suit property.

Since the suit, as on date, is lying dismissed, it will not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the abovesaid application.

However, since a very short point is involved, the matter has been taken up today itself.

The application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

CM(M) 405/2025

The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction.

CM(M) 405/2025

1

When the case was at the initial stage and the issues had yet not been framed, learned Trial Court, on 22.08.2024, passed following order: -

“Present : Plaintiff has joined through VC.

Sh. Rakesh Wadhwa, Ld . counsel for defendant no. I and 2 Sh. Manish Gandhi, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 7 namely, Sh. Dalbir

It is submitted by plaintiff that she is out of India and no new counsel has been engaged till date. It is further submitted that she will be returning in the month end of November and accordingly is seeking time to engage a counsel.

On the last date of hearing, i.e. on 09.07.2024, plaintiff was directed specifically to argue the pending applications. It is not expected from the plaintiff that by her own conduct the matter will be delayed. The plaintiff is asking time till November, however when the case was filed the plaintiff also comes with the bounden duty to assist the Court in the timely disposal of the case. Since the plaintiff herself trying to delay the proceedings in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the present case shall be disposed of for non-prosecution.

Accordingly, the present suit stands dismissed for non-prosecution and for non -compliance of last Order.”

It is quite clear that on that day, the matter was fixed for arguments on pending applications and, even if, the plaintiff was requesting for short accommodation as she was out of country, the learned Trial Court, at best, could have disposed of the pending applications on merits but there was, actually speaking, no point in dismissing the suit in toto for non-prosecution . 11. Moreover, since the plaintiff had made a specific request and was out of India and had not been able to engage any counsel, instead of dismissing the suit for non-prosecution , the Court could have granted her some adjournment, albeit , subject to certain cost or conditions.

Mr. Sahil Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 6 is also present.

Fact remains, the aspect of dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution is,

CM(M) 405/2025

2

primarily, between the plaintiff and the learned Trial Court and, as already noticed above, it was not appropriate for the learned Trial Court to have dismissed the entire suit for non-persecution , merely, because plaintiff could not render due assistance to the Court for the purposes of disposal of pending applications.

The pending application filed by her was under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and, there was one more application filed by Mr. Dalbir Singh under Order I Rule 10 CPC who wanted his impleadment in the ongoing suit. The Court could have decided those applications on the basis of material available in the record, instead of dismissing the suit for non-prosecution . 15. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the suit in question is directed to be restored to its original number and position and parties shall appear before learned Trial Court/Successor Court on 20.09.2025. 16. However, for causing delay, the petitioner is burdened with cost of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be payable, in equal proportion to the defendants, on 20.09.2025.

Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

The next date of hearing i.e. 04.12.2025 stands cancelled.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 2, 2025/ sw/PB

CM(M) 405/2025

3