Dismissed¶25

Christopher Phoenix v. Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Jan 2025FAO (COMM)/13/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, FAO (COMM) 13/2025, decided 16.01.2025 — dismissal of first appeal under Order IX Rule 13 CPC context: recall of ex parte decree dated 06 July 2024 rejected on 28 September 2024 by Commercial Judge; summons served on caretaker Santosh Chandra, deemed due service, appellant's explanation implausible; regular appeal against principal decree already filed; no interference; appeal dismissed; 15-day re-filing delay condoned.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the appeal; ancillary applications disposed: CM APPL. 2677/2025 (exemption) allowed subject to just exceptions, and delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal condoned. ¶25

Christopher Phoenix Vs Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on the appeal; ancillary applications disposed: CM APPL. 2677/2025 (exemption) allowed subject to just exceptions, and delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal condoned.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether there are grounds for the High Court to interfere with the order dated 28 September 2024 of the Commercial Judge rejecting the appellant's application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for recall of the ex parte decree dated 06 July 2024.

¶20

Court's answer

Summons were duly received by one Mr. Santosh Chandra, stated to be the caretaker of the appellant, who was found present in the premises when summons were sought to be served; this fact is not disputed by the appellant.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The appellant's explanation that Mr. Chandra failed to apprise the appellant of the service of the summons clearly appears to be implausible.

¶23

Key takeaways

Against the principal decree, a regular appeal has already been filed.ratio¶23
In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the order impugned.ratio¶24
The appeal fails and shall stand dismissed.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi — FAO (COMM) 13/2025 (Christopher Phoenix v. Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), decided 16 January 2025 (Varma and Shankar, JJ.). Appeal against the order dated 28 September 2024 of the Commercial Judge rejecting the appellant's application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recall of the ex parte decree dated 06 July 2024. Held: summons were duly received by one Mr. Santosh Chandra, stated to be the caretaker of the appellant and found present in the premises, a fact not disputed by the appellant; the appellant's plea that Mr. Chandra failed to appraise it of the service was held to be clearly implausible; and a regular appeal against the principal decree had already been filed. Accordingly, no ground was found to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal was dismissed. Delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal was condoned.

¶1

$~95

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO (COMM) 13/2025, CM APPL. 2676/2025 (STAY) & CM APPL. 2678/2025 (DELAY 15 DAYS IN RE-FILING)

¶4

CHRISTOPHER PHOENIX .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. N.P. Singh, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

AAR PEE APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

¶8

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Dhawan, Adv. for R-1.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶11

O R D E R % 16.01.2025

¶12

CM APPL. 2677/2025 (EX.)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

CM APPL. 2678/2025 (DELAY 15 DAYS IN RE-FILING)

¶16

Bearing in mind the disclosures made in the application, the

¶17

delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

¶18

The application stands disposed of.

¶19

FAO (COMM) 13/2025, CM APPL. 2676/2025 (STAY)

¶20

This appeal is directed against the order dated 28 September 2024 pursuant to which the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 moved by the appellant for recall of the ex parte decree dated 06 July 2024 has come to be rejected.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 24/01/2025 at 16:00:56

¶23

The Commercial Judge has noted that the summons have been duly received by one Mr. Santosh Chandra, who is stated to be the caretaker of the appellant and was found present in the premises when summons were sought to be served. This fact is not disputed by the appellant. What is however contended is that Mr. Chandra had failed to apprise the appellant of the service of those summons. The said explanation clearly appears to be implausible. In any case, we find that against the principal decree a regular appeal has already been filed.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, we find no ground to interfere with the order impugned.

¶25

The appeal fails and shall stand dismissed.

¶26

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶27

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

¶28

JANUARY 16, 2025/ RW

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 24/01/2025 at 16:00:56

Christopher Phoenix v. Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Christopher Phoenix v. Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

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

M/S S.H. Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax East Delhi

Cit Vs Suniar Hotels Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Vs Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-6, New Delhi Vs Mohan Exports(India) Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax -X Vs Chand Prabha Jain

Cit Vs Catholic Relief Services