Sh. Krishan v. Sh. H. Vikram

Delhi HC16 Oct 2025CS(OS)/413/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of suit dismissed for non-prosecution; Order IX Rule 9 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Section 5 Limitation Act condonation of one day delay; sufficient cause; hospitalisation of plaintiff's son; impleadment applicant (O.A. 53/2025); Delhi High Court; CS(OS) 413/2021; Vikas Mahajan, J.; order dated 26.02.2026; next date 18.08.2026.

What did the court decide?

One-day delay in filing the restoration application condoned (I.A. 30094/2025); suit dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.10.2025 restored to its original number (I.A. 30093/2025); in O.A. 53/2025, reply to be filed within four weeks, rejoinder before the next date, matter re-notified for 18.08.2026. ¶¶18

Sh. Krishan Vs Sh. H. Vikram — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 413/2021

¶4

SH. KRISHAN .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. A.K. Sen, Adv. versus SH. H. VIKRAM .....Defendant Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Sarthak Gupta and Mr. Suman Raj, Advs.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶6

O R D E R % 26.02.2026

¶7

I.A. 30094/2025 (under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of one day delay in filing the application)

¶8

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

¶9

The application stands disposed of.

¶10

I.A. 30093/2025 (under Order IX Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside order of dismissal dated 16.10.2025)

¶11

The present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking restoration of the suit which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 16.10.2025.

¶12

Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff submits that on the said date his associate had appeared and had apprised the Court that he has not been able to contact the plaintiff, but on the said ground suit was dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶13

He submits that later it transpired that plaintiff’s son namely Amit Kumar was admitted in Fortis Hospital and for the said reason, the plaintiff

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 28/02/2026 at 12:16:20

¶16

could not give instructions to his counsel.

¶17

No reply to the application has been filed.

¶18

In view of the justification put forth by the plaintiff in the application, this Court is of the view that sufficient cause has been shown. Therefore, the application is allowed and the suit is restored to its original number.

¶19

The application is disposed of.

¶20

O.A. 53/2025 (by appellant)

¶21

Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff submits that the present O.A. has been filed by the applicant, whose application seeking impleadment was dismissed. He prays for time to file reply.

¶22

Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks.

¶23

Rejoinder thereto, be filed before the next date.

¶24

At this stage, Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant enters appearance.

¶25

He submits that reply has been filed by the defendant to the present

¶26

O.A. However, the same is under objection. Let him pursue with the Registry and have the same placed on record before the next date.

¶27

Re-notify on 18.08.2026.

¶28

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶29

FEBRUARY 26, 2026 N.S. ASWAL

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 28/02/2026 at 12:16:20

Sh. Krishan v. Sh. H. Vikram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Krishan v. Sh. H. Vikram

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

Jagwinder Singh Khurana and Anr. Vs Smt. Tejinder Kaur Baweja & Anr.

Ramesh Kumar Bhatia Vs Anil Mehra

Dhanya Rajendran & Anr. Vs Galaxy Zoom India Ovt Ltd. & Ors.

Master Devansh & Ors. Vs Smt. Santosh Devi & Ors.

Harpreet Kaur Vs Harman Kour Sharma

Coomi Kapoor Vs Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP & Anr.

Manak Portfolios (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs Geeta Katyal & Anr.

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs Krishan Kumar Gupta & Anr.

Ae Tollway Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

Harsh Azad & Anr. Vs Ebixcash Limited

M/S Sandhya Finance Ltd. Vs Naresh Kumar

Versha Charan Vs State and Ors.

Master Dhruv Kukreja & Anr. Vs State & Ors.

Insight Direct India Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorised Representative Vs Capitalgram Marketing and Technology Pvt. Ltd. through All the Directors