Disposed¶29

Ram Bharose v. Shakuntala & Anr.

Delhi HC21 May 2025CM(M)/645/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CM(M) 645/2025, Ram Bharose v. Shakuntala & Anr., High Court of Delhi, Manoj Jain J., decided 21 May 2025 (oral). Setting aside of ex parte order dated 21.08.2024 in a suit for specific performance and injunction; antecedent mediation settlement dated 10.01.2024 before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts involving payment of Rs. 3,30,000/-; cost of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to plaintiff payable by next hearing date 12.07.2025; petition and pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte order dated 21.08.2024 set aside; defendant No.1 permitted to participate in the proceedings; cost of Rs. 10,000/- directed to be paid to the plaintiff on or before the next date of hearing before the Trial Court (stated to be 12.07.2025); petition and pending applications disposed of. ¶29

Ram Bharose Vs Shakuntala & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the ex parte order dated 21.08.2024 should be set aside so as to permit defendant No.1 (petitioner) to participate in the suit, notwithstanding the dismissal of his application by the Trial Court.

¶16

Court's answer

Since no substantial development has taken place in the interregnum, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if defendant No.1 is permitted to participate in the proceedings and the ex parte order is set aside.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with the direction that the ex parte order dated 21.08.2024 is set aside, subject to defendant No.1 giving complete assistance and cooperation to the Trial Court.

¶28

Key takeaways

If the terms of the settlement were not acceptable to defendant No.1, he should have appeared before the learned Trial Court and made appropriate submissions instead of avoiding Court proceedings.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.; decision dated 21.05.2025) disposed of a petition by defendant No.1 challenging the Trial Court's dismissal of his application to set aside an ex parte order dated 21.08.2024 in a suit for specific performance and injunction filed by Smt. Shakuntala. After a mediation settlement dated 10.01.2024 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts (under which the plaintiff was to pay a further Rs. 3,30,000/- and withdraw the suit) proved unacceptable to defendant No.1, he ceased appearing and was proceeded against ex parte; the Trial Court dismissed his application and imposed Rs. 10,000/- costs. Holding that no substantial development had taken place and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, the Court set aside the ex parte order, permitted defendant No.1 to participate, directed the Rs. 10,000/- cost to be paid to the plaintiff on or before the next hearing date (12.07.2025), and cautioned defendant No.1 to extend complete assistance and cooperation to the Trial Court.

¶1

$~52

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21st May, 2025

¶3

- CM(M) 645/2025, CM APPL. 20431/2025 & CM APPL. 20432/2025

¶4

RAM BHAROSE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dushyant Chaudhary and Mr. Sunil Raut Bharti, Advs. with Petitioner in person. versus

¶5

SHAKUNTALA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Avnish Shukla, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Neeraj Bhandari, Mr. Prashant Sharma and Mr. Prem Bhardwaj, Advs. for R-2.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶7

Petitioner is defending a suit filed by Smt. Shakuntala (respondent No. 1 herein) who seeks specific performance of the contract and injunction.

¶8

Defendant No. 1 participated in the above said suit and had even filed his written statement. Thereafter, the matter was referred to mediation and settlement took place before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 10.01.2024. In terms of the settlement, the plaintiff was to make a further payment of Rs. 3,30,000/- to defendant no. 1 and plaintiff had also agreed to withdraw the suit in question.

¶9

However, it appears that such settlement terms were, later on, found to be not acceptable to defendant No.1 as he did not appear before the learned

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

CM(M) 645/2025

¶12

¶13

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 3.05.2025 15:17:43

¶14

Trial Court for making requisite statement in terms of the above said settlement.

¶15

He was, eventually, proceeded against ex parte on 21.08.2024.

¶16

He moved an application seeking setting aside such of ex parte order and is aggrieved by the dismissal of his such application.

¶17

Learned Trial Court was, primarily, concerned with the manner in which the defendant No.1 was conducting himself. It recorded in the impugned order that despite there being a settlement between the parties, neither defendant No. 1 nor its counsel appeared before the learned trial Court on effective dates despite being mindful of the proceeding being conducted by the Court.

¶18

When the matter was referred for mediation, the issues had already been framed and the plaintiff had submitted his affidavit with respect to his evidence.

¶19

Such affidavit is yet to be tendered in evidence.

¶20

While dismissing the above said application, learned Trial Court has also burdened defendant No.1 with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

¶21

Undoubtedly, if the terms of settlement were not acceptable to defendant No. 1, instead of avoiding Court proceedings, he should have appeared before the learned Trial Court and should have made appropriate submission, instead of playing a hide-and-seek game.

¶22

Be that as it may, since no substantial development has taken place, in the interregnum, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff either, if defendant No.1 is permitted to participate in the proceedings and if ex parte order is set aside.

¶23

Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case and while also cautioning

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

CM(M) 645/2025

¶26

¶27

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 3.05.2025 15:17:43

¶28

defendant No. 1 to give complete assistance and corporation to the learned Trial Court in future, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the ex parte order dated 21.08.2024 is set aside. However, the cost of Rs. 10,000/would instead go to the plaintiff and let the above said cost be cleared on or before the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court which is stated to be 12.07.2025.

¶29

The petition along with pending application stands disposed of in view of the aforesaid.

¶30

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶31

MAY 21, 2025/ab/shs

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed CM(M) 645/2025 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 3.05.2025 15:17:43

¶34

Ram Bharose v. Shakuntala & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bharose v. Shakuntala & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chain Sukh Pal Vs Shiv Charan Goel

M/S Consolidated Construction Ltd. Vs Gsc Glass Pvt. Ltd.

Sanjay Vs Pallavi Sharma & Ors.

Kdp Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vs Mr. Deepak Kumar Tomar

M/S Cosmic Orange Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs L. Subramainam & Anr.

Shatrughan Prasad and Ors. Vs Rupan Jain and Ors.

Sh Bhagwat Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr.

Gobind Ram Vs Sunny Wadhwa & Ors. & Ors.

Chain Sukh Pal Vs Shiv Charan Goel

M/S Consolidated Construction Ltd. Vs Gsc Glass Pvt. Ltd.

Sanjay Vs Pallavi Sharma & Ors.

M/S Space Infra Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Atul Mittal

Sushil Ansal Vs Priti Pal Singh Ahuja through Its Legal Heirs

Sushil Ansal Vs Ankur Dhawan & Anr.