Plaintiffs in a commercial suit failed to appear after repeated adjournments and prior non-appearances. The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~12
Through: None.
versus
MUNSHI RAM SAINI AND SONS. .....Defendant Through: Mr. P.K. Jain, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 15.09.2025
2. A perusal of the record shows that in the past as well, there was either no appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs or adjournment(s) were sought on their behalf.
3. In the interest of justice, by way of a last opportunity, re-notify on 15.09.2025. ”
TEJAS KARIA, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 ap
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 18/09/2025 at 12:16:18
Madhu Gupta & Anr.
Munshi Ram Saini and Sons
Tejas Karia
As recorded by the court registry
A suit of a commercial nature above the specified value, governed by the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
