First appeal challenging dismissal of a defendant's application to set aside an ex-parte order in a possession and rent arrears suit. The court found summons was properly served at both addresses, including a speed-post refusal endorsement, upheld the trial court's order and dismissed 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.
$~17
Through: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
versus
ANURAG BUDHWAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Mr. Nikhil Kr. Singh, Ms. Shalini Sharma and Mr. Hitanshu Chhillar, Advocates
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
O R D E R % 10.11.2025
CPC, 1908 for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.01.2024
passed by learned ADJ-03, Tis Hazari Courts, West Delhi, passed in Civ DJ 745/2023 whereby an application stated have been filed
under Order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)by the appellant/defendant stands dismissed.
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 12/11/2025 at 12:13:57
premises. According to the appellant/defendant, no summons was ever served upon her and hence the trial court went wrong in setting her ex-parte and proceeding to record the evidence of the respondent/petitioner. The appellant/defendant on coming to know
of the order setting her ex-parte, filed a petition to set aside the same. However, the trial court wrongly dismissed the application holding that summons had been served on the appellant/defendant, when in fact no summons had been served on her.
appellant/defendant that summons was never served on the latter, and therefore, the finding of the trial court that summons was served on her is incorrect and hence, interest of justice requires the impugned order to be set aside. He submits that the report of the process server regarding the service of summons is false. It is further submitted that the appellant/defendant had met with an accident pursuant to which she was in the hospital and hence there was no possibility of the summons being served on her.
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 12/11/2025 at 12:13:57
appellant/defendant had been provided and hence summons was sent to both the said addresses. When the process server attempted to serve summons at her address at GH-13/369, SFS Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, one Hema Taneja stated to be the daughter-in-law of the appellant/defendant refused to accept the summons. Thereafter, fresh summons was sent to the appellant/defendant at the aforesaid address by speed post which returned with endorsement refused. Summons was also issued to the appellant/defendant at another address, namely, flat no. 63, second floor, DDA MIG flats, Milansar Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The said summons was returned with a report
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 12/11/2025 at 12:13:57
that it had been served on one Nirmal Kaur, daughter-in-law of the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant has taken up a contention that she is not in good terms with her daughter-in-law. The appellant/defendant has no case that the persons referred to in the report are not her daughters-in-law. She has no case that the addresses in which the summons was attempted to be served on Hema Taneja and the address in which the summons was received by Nirmal Kaur are not her addresses. Now, I will assume for a moment that the daughters-in-law on whom the summons were served are not in good terms with the appellant/defendant and that they have not informed the appellant/defendant of the receipt of the summons. However, this will also not help the appellant/defendant because the summons sent by the speed post was returned ‘refused’, which is proper service of summons. It cannot be believed that the endorsement made by the postman is also false. There are no materials to believe so. That being the position, the materials on record show that summons was in fact
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 12/11/2025 at 12:13:57
served on the appellant/defendant and hence the averments to the contrary are apparently wrong.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J
NOVEMBER 10, 2025/ mj
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 12/11/2025 at 12:13:57
1 issue framed by the court
Whether summons had been duly served on the defendant, justifying dismissal of her Order IX Rule 13 application to set aside the ex-parte order?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Prakash Taneja
Anurag Budhwar
Chandrasekharan Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
