Anil Singh v. Pawan Gulati

Delhi HC10 Jul 2025CM(M)/454/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex-parte order; setting aside ex-parte decree; Order IX Rule 7 CPC; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; wrong date noted by counsel; diary not produced; affidavit of advocate; review dismissed; fresh application directed; CM(M) 454/2025; Anil Singh v. Pawan Gulati; Delhi High Court; Manoj Jain; 10.07.2025; suit for recovery; opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to file a fresh application (for setting aside the ex-parte order) before the learned Trial Court within one week, accompanied by his advocate's affidavit and photocopy of the diary; original diary to be kept ready; Trial Court requested to consider and dispose of the application in accordance with law after hearing both parties. ¶¶32

Anil Singh Vs Pawan Gulati — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-defendant, whose application for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed for non-production of the diary and non-furnishing of his counsel's affidavit, should be permitted to file a fresh application with the requisite supporting material.

¶¶24

Court's answer

The application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC had been dismissed for twin reasons, namely non-production of the diary and non-furnishing of the affidavit by the learned counsel for the defendant.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the learned Trial Court within one week, along with the affidavit of his advocate and photocopy of the diary.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

The petitioner is directed to keep ready the original diary for consideration of the learned Trial Court.ratio¶¶25
The learned Trial Court is requested to consider the fresh application and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both parties.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J.), CM(M) 454/2025, order dated 10.07.2025 (Anil Singh v. Pawan Gulati): The petitioner, defendant in a suit for recovery, was proceeded against ex-parte on 10.10.2022, allegedly because his counsel mis-noted the next date as 10.02.2023. His application for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed on 18.09.2023 for non-production of the diary and non-furnishing of the counsel's affidavit, and a review was dismissed on 08.11.2024. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file a fresh application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC within one week along with his advocate's affidavit and a photocopy of the diary, to keep the original diary ready, and requested the Trial Court (where an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application was already being argued, next date 07.08.2025) to decide the fresh application in accordance with law after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing.

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 454/2025 & CM APPL. 13701-13702/2025

¶4

ANIL SINGH

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Amit Alok, Mr. Saurav Prakash and Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Advocates.

versus

PAWAN GULATI

.....Respondent

Through:

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN O R D E R % 10.07.2025

¶13

None appears on behalf of the respondent despite advance service of notice.

¶14

The petitioner is defending a suit for recovery and was proceeded against ex-parte , as he did not appear before the learned District Judge on 10.10.2022.

¶15

According to learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant), the nonappearance was on account of the fact that a wrong date had been noted by his counsel. According to him, though the learned Trial Court had given the next date as 10.10.2022, but his counsel noted the next date as 10.02.2023 in his diary and, therefore, in the interregnum, he was proceeded against exparte .

¶16

An application, seeking setting aside of ex-parte order, filed by the

¶17

CM(M) 454/2025

¶18

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 12:51:55

¶21

petitioner has been dismissed, primarily, for the reason that such diary, in which a wrong noting had been made, has not even been placed before the Court to appreciate such contention. It was also noticed that the counsel for the defendant had not submitted his affidavit in support of said application and, therefore, the abovesaid application was dismissed on 18.09.2023.

¶22

A review was filed but such review was also dismissed on 08.11.2024 holding that the earlier order did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record.

¶23

It is also apprised that though the suit was adjourned for hearing final arguments, the defendant has moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and learned Trial Court is hearing arguments on such application. 7. The next date of hearing before the Trial Court is stated to be 07.08.2025.

¶24

Since the application moved under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was dismissed for twin reasons, i.e. for the non-production of diary and nonfurnishing of the affidavit by the learned counsel for the defendant, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file application afresh. Such application along with abovesaid requisite material, be filed before the learned Trial Court within a period of one week from today. Thus, along with such application, he would also submit affidavit of his advocate as well as photocopy of the diary, for kind perusal of the learned Trial Court.

¶25

The petitioner would also keep ready the original diary for consideration of the learned Trial Court.

¶26

The learned Trial Court is requested to consider said application and to dispose of the same in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity

¶27

CM(M) 454/2025

¶28

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 12:51:55

¶31

of hearing to both the parties.

¶32

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms along with all pending applications.

¶33

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶34

JULY 10, 2025 ‘dc’/shs

¶35

CM(M) 454/2025

¶36

¶37

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 12:51:55

Anil Singh v. Pawan Gulati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Singh v. Pawan Gulati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Jain Vs Tehsin & Ors.

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Dwarka Parshad & Anr.

Shri Rajbir Jain Prop of M/S Shikha Enterprises Vs Paragon Paper Industries LLP. through Its Partner Shri Ajay Jain

Sunny @ Nand Kishore Gandhi Vs Guddi Khatun

Shobha Sachdeva & Anr. Vs Narender Kumar Sachdeva

Ghanshyam Bhagchandani Vs Sangeeta

Mr. Abdul Mojeeb Vs Mr. Rahul Singhal

Masjidnoor Ahmed Waqf through Mohd Azam Vs Mohd Mubarak & Anr.

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Dwarka Parshad & Anr.

Kuria Singh Vs Narayan Singh

Shri Rajbir Jain Prop of M/S Shikha Enterprises Vs Paragon Paper Industries LLP. through Its Partner Shri Ajay Jain

Vijayant Kumar Singh Vs Smt Sneh Gakhar

Gita Khorana and Ors. Vs Punit Beriwala and Ors.

Priyanka Ailawadi Vs Saurabh Goel