Dismissed¶¶42

Babita & Anr. v. Geeta

Delhi HC8 Dec 2025FAO/331/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO 331/2025, Babita & Anr. v. Geeta, Delhi High Court, decision 08.12.2025, Chandrasekharan Sudha, J. Keywords: ex-parte decree; setting aside ex-parte judgment; Order IX Rule 13 CPC; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; condonation of delay; sufficient cause; appearance recorded 23.03.2023 and 19.09.2023; summons in execution petition; stay of execution proceedings refused; Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC first appeal from orders; Misc. DJ 117/2025 Karkardooma; blame on counsel deprecated; Rajneesh Kumar vs. Ved Prakash 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The allegation that the appellants/defendants came to know of the decree only on receipt of notice in the execution petition is apparently false and incorrect, since the impugned order records their appearances on 23.03.2023 and 19.09.2023. ¶¶32

Babita & Anr. Vs Geeta — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree, i.e., whether sufficient cause/reasons were shown. +2 more

¶¶40

Court's answer

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

No sufficient reason(s) were shown for setting aside the ex-parte decree or to condone the delay, and there were no reasons to stay the execution proceedings or wait till notice was served on the respondent/plaintiff.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

No infirmity was found in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.) dismissed FAO 331/2025 under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC filed by the defendants in Misc. DJ 117/2025 against the order dated 04.11.2025 of the District Judge-01 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, dismissing their application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree and their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. The plea that the defendants learnt of the ex-parte judgment only on 29.01.2025 upon receiving summons in the execution petition was rejected as apparently false, the impugned order recording their appearances on 23.03.2023 and 19.09.2023; the Court noted (relying on Rajneesh Kumar vs. Ved Prakash, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3) that the entire blame had been placed on two advocates said to have been engaged, a practice deprecated by the Apex Court. Holding that no sufficient reason(s) were shown for setting aside the ex-parte decree or condoning the delay, the Court declined to stay the execution proceedings, found no infirmity in the impugned order, dismissed the appeal, and closed pending applications.

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 08.12.2025

¶4

- FAO 331/2025

¶5

BABITA & ANR. .....Appellants

¶6

Through: Mr. K.S. Verma, Mr. Vipin Rana, Mr. Vinay Panwar and Mr. Vishu Verma, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

GEETA .....Respondent

¶9

Through:

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

¶11

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶12

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

¶13

CM APPL. 77380/2025

¶14

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

The application stands disposed of.

¶16

CM APPL. 77379/2025

¶17

This is an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 Code of Civil

¶18

Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) filed by the applicants/defendants in

¶19

Misc. DJ 117/2025 on the file of the Court of the District Judge-

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

FAO 331/2025

¶22

Page 1

¶23

Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:0 9.12.2025 15:32:57

¶24

01, (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2025, by which their application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act) have been dismissed.

¶25

Initially, when the appeal came up before this Court on 28.11.2025, notice was issued to the respondent/plaintiff. However, today, an application for stay of the execution proceedings, being CM APPL. 77379/2025 has come up for consideration. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants is heard on the question of stay as well as the merits of the appeal.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants submit that two advocates engaged to represent the appellants/defendants never appeared before the trial court, and therefore, the matter was proceeded ex-parte . It is stated that the appellants/defendants, for the first time, came to know about the ex-parte judgment only on 29.01.2025, when they received summons in the execution petition. Thereafter, a new counsel was engaged, who inspected

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

FAO 331/2025

¶29

Page 2

¶30

Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:0 9.12.2025 15:32:57

¶31

the judicial file on 15.02.2025 and apprised them about the status of the case.

¶32

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellants/ defendants entered appearance on 23.03.2023, and their appearance was also recorded on 19.09.2023. Therefore, the allegation in the application that they came to know about the decree only on receipt of the notice in the execution petition is apparently false and incorrect.

¶33

In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the trial court refers to the names of the two counsels who, according to the appellants/ defendants, were engaged to represent them but never appeared. Therefore, the entire blame has been put on the said two advocates stated to have been engaged. This practice of putting the entire blame on the counsel concerned has been deprecated by the Apex Court in Rajneesh Kumar vs. Ved Prakash, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3 .

¶34

On going through the impugned order, I do not find any

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

FAO 331/2025

¶37

Page 3

¶38

Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:0 9.12.2025 15:32:57

¶39

reasons to either stay the execution proceeding or wait till notice is served upon the respondent/plaintiff, as it is quite obvious from the impugned order itself that no sufficient reason(s) have been shown

¶40

for setting aside the ex parte decree or to condone the delay.

¶41