Appeal against dismissal of applications to set aside an ex-parte decree and condone a five-year delay. Court rejected alleged judicial custody as valid excuse, noting active contestation earlier and filing of current applications over a year after release.
The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the appeal.
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.
% Judgment Reserved on: 10.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 16.12.2025
CHANDRA ABHISHEK RAJ SRIVASTAVA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Kumar Prashant, Ms. Asmita Singh and Ms. Simran Chabra, Advocates.
versus
DR. AKSHAY MEHRA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manik Ahluwalia and Mr. Devashish Boohankar, Advocates for R-1 along with respondent no.1 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
104 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) has
been filed by the defendant in MISC DJ No. 1004 of 2025 (IN CS No. 811 of 2019) on the file of District Judge – 04, Patiala House
Page 1 of 8
FAO 342/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 12:13:16
Courts, New Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2025, whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and the application under Section of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act) for condonation of delay of 579 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 were dismissed.
the suit premises, a farmhouse, was given on lease to the defendant. The lease expired on 30.09.2019, whereupon the defendant was called upon to vacate the suit premises. However, the defendant refused to vacate the tenanted premises. Hence, the suit.
Page 2 of 8
FAO 342/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 12:13:16
application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree for possession on the basis of the admissions made by the defendant in the written statement. The application was opposed by the defendant. The trial court, after hearing both sides, vide order dated 10.02.2021, allowed the application and the suit was partly decreed by granting possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiffs. Subsequent to passing of the aforesaid order dated 10.02.2021, the defendant stopped appearing in the suit and hence, by order dated 09.12.2021, the defendant was set ex-parte, and ultimately an ex-parte judgement and decree was passed on 05.10.2023.
Page 3 of 8
FAO 342/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 12:13:16
defendant was in judicial custody, he was unaware of the suit proceedings and the fact that an ex parte decree and judgment had been passed against him. He became aware of the ex parte decree dated 05.10.2023 on 08.05.2025 only, after receiving notice in the execution petition bearing number 72/2025. Hence, the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree as well as the application for condonation of delay in filing the said application.
Page 4 of 8
FAO 342/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 12:13:16
ex parte decree only when notice of the execution petition was received is absolutely false. The defendant on receipt of summons
Page 5 of 8
FAO 342/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 12:13:16
had entered appearance, filed written statement and through his lawyer contested the matter till the suit was partly decreed. He does not refer to the date on which he was released on bail, but he only makes a vague statement that he was released on bail in January 2024. Even thereafter, he does not seem to have made any enquiries whatsoever, regarding the suit which was pending at the time he was sent to judicial custody for which no reasons whatsoever have been furnished. Even assuming that the defendant was unable to contest because he was in judicial custody, he was released on bail in January 2024. However, the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree and the application for condonation of delay is seen filed only on 19.05.2025, that is, after more than a year, for which also no reasons have been given. Therefore, the trial court was perfectly justified in concluding that there are no plausible reasons or any reason for that matter to condone the delay or to set aside the ex parte decree.
Page 6 of 8
FAO 342/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 12:13:16
Counsel for the defendant that despite the aforesaid conduct of the defendant, an opportunity may be given to the defendant to contest the case and obtain an order on the merits. According to him, the trial court has grossly erred in awarding mense profits for the period during which he was never in possession of the tenanted premises. At first blush, the argument seemed quite attractive and convincing to this Court. But as pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, mense profits has been granted only till possession was taken over or possession was handed over to the plaintiffs in the execution proceedings pursuant to the decree granting them possession. The argument that for the period the defendant was in judicial custody, he is not liable for mense profits is quite untenable. The defendant has no case that possession of the tenanted premises had been handed over to the landlord by him at any point of time. Had he handed over possession, then his liability would have come to an end. It is submitted that the defendant could not hand over possession because he was in judicial custody.
Page 7 of 8
FAO 342/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 12:13:16
Even assuming that the defendant was in judicial custody, he was legally in possession of the tenanted premises and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the trial court granting mense profits till
the plaintiffs were given possession of the property.
any pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (JUDGE)
DECEMBER 16, 2025/ABP
Page 8 of 8
FAO 342/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 12:13:16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to have condonation of delay for setting aside an ex-parte decree granted nearly two years prior to his attempt.
Whether the appellant is entitled to merits of the suit regarding mesne profits during his alleged period of judicial custody.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
CHANDRA ABHISHEK RAJ SRIVASTAVA
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
