Dismissed¶¶43

Prem Nath Sarup (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sumit Agarwal

Delhi HC19 May 2025CM(M)/925/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CM(M) 925/2025, Manoj Jain J., 19.05.2025 — restoration of commercial suit dismissed for plaintiff's non-appearance; condonation of 566-day delay refused; blame-shift to negligent counsel rejected; ex parte defendant no ground for concession; 30-day limitation for restoration expired; Rs.10,000/- costs imposed 10.03.2023 unpaid; supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 Constitution of India; no illegality or perversity; petition dismissed in limine; relies on M/s Khanji Impex CM(M) No. 871/2025 (08.05.2025) and Rahul Mavai 2024 SCC Online Del 9050.

What did the court decide?

None on the main petition; CM(M) 925/2025 dismissed in limine. Interlocutory application CM APPL. 30271/2025 (exemption) allowed subject to all just exceptions. ¶¶43

Prem Nath Sarup (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sumit Agarwal — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None on the main petition; CM(M) 925/2025 dismissed in limine. Interlocutory application CM APPL. 30271/2025 (exemption) allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/plaintiff was entitled to condonation of the delay of about 566 days and restoration of its commercial suit, which had been dismissed for non-appearance on 11.07.2023, the blame being laid on the negligence of its counsel. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

Merely because the defendant was ex parte before the Trial Court, the plaintiff cannot seek any special concession or privilege.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The contention that a litigant cannot be penalized for the inaction or negligence of its counsel was rejected; the plaintiff is responsible for its own miseries as it did not pursue its suit in the desired manner. In particular, the name of the allegedly negligent counsel was not even divulged in the application.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

Reiterating its earlier decisions in M/s Khanji Impex (CM(M) No. 871/2025, decided 08.05.2025) and Rahul Mavai (2024 SCC Online Del 9050), the Court endorsed the position that the practice of passing on the buck to the counsel needs to be discouraged and rejected, and that a litigant does not abandon all responsibility to keep track of a matter once it is entrusted to Counsel.ratio¶¶36
The reasons given by the learned Trial Court indicate that it carefully perused the entire material and, keeping in mind the conduct of the plaintiff and the unexplained delay, rightly dismissed the application seeking restoration.ratio¶¶41
The impugned order is well-reasoned and suffers from no illegality or perversity of any kind necessitating interference by invoking supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J., oral) — CM(M) 925/2025, decided 19.05.2025. Petitioner's commercial suit was dismissed for non-appearance on 11.07.2023 by the learned Commercial Court (defendant already ex parte since 19.11.2022; plaintiff absent on 25.04.2022, 28.09.2022, 07.01.2023 and 10.03.2023). The restoration application was moved only on 05.03.2025, after a delay of around 566 days, the explanation being that newly engaged counsel did not keep track of the case; the Trial Court dismissed the application, holding the explanation insufficient, the application otherwise barred by the 30-day limitation (even presuming knowledge in January 2025, limitation would have expired in February 2025), and noting non-disclosure of the new counsel's name and non-payment of Rs.10,000/- costs imposed on 10.03.2023. Dismissing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in limine, the Court held: (i) the ex parte status of the defendant confers no special concession or privilege on the plaintiff; (ii) a litigant cannot escape responsibility by blaming counsel — the practice of passing on the buck to counsel needs to be discouraged and rejected, a litigant not abandoning all responsibility once the matter is entrusted to Counsel (following its own decisions in M/s Khanji Impex, CM(M) No. 871/2025, decided 08.05.2025, and Rahul Mavai, 2024 SCC Online Del 9050); (iii) the plaintiff was responsible for its own miseries; and (iv) the impugned order being well-reasoned and free from illegality or perversity, no interference was warranted.

¶1

$~78

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 19^th May, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 925/2025 & CM APPL. 30271/2025

¶5

PREM NATH SARUP (EXPORTS) PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mehul Gupta, ADvocate (Through VC)

¶6

versus

¶7

SUMIT AGARWAL .....Respondent Through: None

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

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

¶10

CM APPL. 30271/2025 (exemption)

¶11

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

CM(M) 925/2025

¶13

Petitioner had filed a suit which was commercial in nature.

¶14

When such suit was taken up by the learned Commercial Court on 11.07.2023, suit was dismissed on account of non –appearance from the side of petitioner

¶15

Petitioner sought restoration of the aforesaid suit by moving an application.

¶16

Admittedly, such application has been moved on 05.03.2025, after a delay of around 566 days.

¶17

Learned Trial Court, after extensive elaboration of the entire factual matrix, dismissed the aforesaid application.

¶18

Such order is under challenge.

¶19

Undoubtedly, since defendant had also not appeared before learned Trial

¶20

CM(M) 925/2025 1

¶21

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 1.05.2025 11:40:27

¶22

Court, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 19.11.2022. However, merely because of the fact that defendant was ex parte, plaintiff cannot seek any special concession or privilege.

¶23

Suit was dismissed on 11.07.2023 and the learned Trial Court noticed that there was no appearance from the side of the plaintiff on earlier occasions i.e. on 25.04.2022, 28.09.2022, 07.01.2023 and 10.03.2023 and, resultantly, the suit was dismissed for non-appearance.

¶24

Impugned order records specific reasons as to why the plaintiff is not entitled to restoration of the suit. These are mentioned in Para-17 which reads as under: -

¶25

“ 17. ...............

¶26

a) The present suit was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2023; even as per the case of the applicant/ plaintiff, there is a delay of 566 days of which condonation has been sought but no cogent reason has been assigned for such a long delay in filing the present application. The only reason given is that the newly engaged counsel did not keep the track of the case, which is not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay for not preferring the present application within the stipulated period of limitation.

¶27

b) Further, according to the applicant/ plaintiff, the plaintiff had engaged the new counsel in the month of November, 2022 and in the month of January, 2025, it was revealed that the present suit had been dismissed on 11.07.2023. Although the said averment has no force but even for the sake of arguments it is presumed that the applicant/ plaintiff came to know about the dismissal of the suit in January, 2025, the limitation for filing the present application would have expired in the month of February 2025 in that eventuality, whereas the present application has been filed in the month of March 2025 (.e. on 05.03.2025), which is beyond the period of 30 days for filing the present application. On this ground alone, the instant application being barred by limitation, is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

c) In case the applicant/ plaintiff had engaged the new counsel in the month of November, 2022, there was no occasion for the applicant/ plaintiff or for the newly engaged counsel not to inform this court about the change of counsel.

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

CM(M) 925/2025 2

¶31

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 1.05.2025 11:40:27

¶32

d) It is evident that on 10.03.2023, Ld. Predecessor of this court had imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the plaintiff; no explanation has been given for not making the payment of the said cost even after coming to know that the cost had been imposed on the plaintiff. In the given circumstances, it appears that the applicant/ plaintiff did not appear on subsequent dates so that he can just avoid the payment of the said cost as imposed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.

¶33

e) The non-appearance of applicant/ plaintiff on various occasions has already been noted down by the Ld. Predecessor of this court in the impugned order dated 11.07.2023. The grounds raised in the present application are absolutely vague, general and not specific. Applicant/ plaintiff has even not disclosed the name of newly engaged counsel. The exact date when he was allegedly engaged, the exact date or month or even year of handing over the brief again to the present counsel, etc. Thus the contentions of the applicant/ plaintiff have no force in the eyes of law.

¶34

f) No doubt that the rules of procedure should not be employed to defeat the dispensation of Justice as technicalities of procedural law are handmaid but at the same time it does not mean that procedural requirement can be thrown to winds and can be ignored out rightly.”

¶35

Herein also, the entire thrust is to contend that a litigant cannot be penalized for inaction of its counsel. Shelter is being sought as their counsel was casual and negligent and did not appear and did not even file vakalatnama before the Court. Interestingly, the name of such counsel has not even been divulged in the application.

¶36

Reference be made to judgment dated 08.05.2025 in M/s Khanji Impex and Anr. Vs. M/s Transnational Shipping India Pvt. Ltd.: CM(M) No. 871/2025 wherein it has been observed by this Court that practice of passing on the buck to the counsel needs to be discouraged and rejected. Reliance was also placed therein upon Rahul Mavai Vs. Union of India and Others: 2024 SCC Online Del 9050 wherein this Court disapproved the same, observing that a litigant does not abandon all responsibility to keep track of a matter, once it is entrusted to Counsel.

¶37

CM(M) 925/2025 3

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 1.05.2025 11:40:27

¶40

Plaintiff is responsible for its own miseries as it did not pursue its suit in the desired manner.

¶41

The aforesaid reasons given by the learned Trial Court clearly go on to indicate that the learned Trial Court has carefully perused the entire material and keeping in mind the conduct of the plaintiff and unexplained delay, the aforesaid application seeking restoration was dismissed.

¶42

Order is well-reasoned and there is no illegality or perversity of any kind in the aforesaid order necessitating any interference by invoking supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶43

Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶44

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶45

MAY 19, 2025/ dr/shs

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

CM(M) 925/2025 4

¶48

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 1.05.2025 11:40:27

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the learned Trial Court dismissing the petitioner/plaintiff's application for restoration of its suit (which had been dismissed for non-appearance on 11.07.2023), refusing condonation of a delay of about 566 days in moving the restoration application.¶¶17
Learned Trial Court
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed a suit which was commercial in nature.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
Suit taken up by the learned Commercial Court on 11.07.2023 and dismissed on account of non-appearance from the side of the petitioner/plaintiff.¶¶14
Prior proceeding
Defendant, having not appeared before the Trial Court, was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 19.11.2022.¶¶22
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff had remained absent on earlier occasions i.e. 25.04.2022, 28.09.2022, 07.01.2023 and 10.03.2023, resulting in dismissal of the suit for non-appearance.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
On 10.03.2023 the Ld. Predecessor of the Trial Court had imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the plaintiff, which remained unpaid; the Trial Court inferred the plaintiff may have avoided appearance to escape the cost.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
Petitioner moved an application for restoration of the suit on 05.03.2025, after a delay of around 566 days.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Trial Court (impugned order, Para-17(a)) found no cogent reason for the long delay; the sole reason offered was that newly engaged counsel did not keep track of the case, held insufficient cause.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Trial Court (impugned order, Para-17(b)) held that even if knowledge of dismissal were presumed in January 2025, limitation would have expired in February 2025, whereas the application was filed on 05.03.2025, beyond the 30-day period, and was therefore barred by limitation.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Trial Court (impugned order, Para-17(e)) observed the grounds in the restoration application were vague and general; the name of the newly engaged counsel was not even disclosed.¶¶33

Prem Nath Sarup (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sumit Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Nath Sarup (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sumit Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arbro Pharmaceuticals P Ltd. Vs Rakesh Dham and Ors.

Prabha Vs Indore Development Authority and Anr. & Anr.

Neeti Malhotra & Anr. Vs Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd.

Geeta Pal Vs Smt. Badami Devi and Anr.

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

Arbro Pharmaceuticals P Ltd. Vs Rakesh Dham and Ors.

Rajeev Sehgal Vs Ved Prakash

Kamlesh Dhingra through Lr Arun Khanna Vs Din Dayal and Ors.

M/S Mn Automobile Private Limited Vs Guriqbal Singh & Anr.

K. L. Manhas Vs M/S Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Sanjay Goel Vs Sag Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.