M/S Marvel Enterprises Vs Kiran Bajaj

the order dated 25.05.2023 as per which an application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 21.09.2019 was dismissed. The allegation is that the father of the appellant/ defendant was not keeping well and that he had certain cardiac ailments, as a result of which he was held up and was not in a position to contact his lawyer who was appearing on

¶10

his behalf. Hence, the prayer is that the impugned order may be

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 13/11/2025 at 12:20:27

¶13

set aside and he may be given an opportunity to obtain an order on

¶14

merits.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff objects to the setting aside of the impugned order on the ground that there are no materials to substantiate the allegation that the father of the appellant/ defendant was having any cardiac issues which prevented him from contacting his lawyer and giving necessary instructions. My attention is drawn to the impugned judgment in which the learned trial judge has referred to the documents that have been produced by the appellant/ defendant, which are of the year March, 2020. Therefore, it is submitted that these documents are much after the passing of the decree and, therefore, said documents would not, in any way, advance the case of the appellant/ defendant.

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

It is true that the medical document relating to admission

¶18

of the father of the appellant/ defendant is dated 24.03.2020. The

¶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 13/11/2025 at 12:20:27

¶21

earlier document that is produced is dated 02.01.2019 which shows that the father of the appellant/ defendant had consulted a doctor for complaints of fever. It is true that this document does not show that father of the appellant/ defendant was having any cardiac issues. However, the materials on record does show that father of the appellant/ defendant passed away on 28.03.2020. After the appellant/ defendant was set ex parte , he approached the trial court for setting aside the ex parte decree within a period of about 46 days. He has no case that he has not received summons. However, he has furnished a reason for his inability to contact the lawyer and to give necessary instructions.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I find that the appellant/ defendant must be given an opportunity to obtain an order on merits. However, that order will be subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent/ plaintiff which shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of this order.

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 13/11/2025 at 12:20:27

¶25

In the result, the impugned order and judgment dated 25.05.2023 and 21.09.2019 respectively are set aside. The appellant/ defendant may move the trial court in accordance with Order XXXVII Rule 4 of CPC. It is made clear that the appeal shall stand allowed only on compliance of the aforesaid condition. If not, the appeal shall stand dismissed.

¶26

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J

¶27

NOVEMBER 11, 2025 kd

¶28

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 13/11/2025 at 12:20:27

M/S Marvel Enterprises v. Kiran Bajaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Marvel Enterprises v. Kiran Bajaj

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

Prakash Taneja Vs Anurag Budhwar

Anish Anand Vs Ashok Kumar Sinha

Vidya Sinha Vs M/S Center for Equity Studies

Sh Surya Prakash Gupta Vs N.S. Chahal and Ors.

M/S Sanghvi Writing Points Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ram Rati Vs Sat Bir & Anr.