Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Gurdeep Sing Virk Vs M/S Fortune Insoles Pvt. Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Delhi HC
2025
Gurdeep Sing Virk Vs M/S Fortune Insoles Pvt. Ltd.Gurdeep Sing Virk v. M/S Fortune Insoles Pvt. Ltd.

Dismissed¶26

Gurdeep Sing Virk v. M/S Fortune Insoles Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC11 Feb 2025RFA/765/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gurdeep Sing Virk (appellant) versus M/S Fortune Insoles Pvt Ltd (respondent), RFA 765/2019, High Court of Delhi, Justice Jyoti Singh, decided 11.02.2025. Dismissal of a Section 96 CPC first appeal for failure to comply with a conditional notice requiring deposit of the decretal amount (Rs.3,16,268/- plus 12% per annum interest decreed by the trial court on 28.09.2018) by way of FDR; repeated extensions (25.09.2019) and indulgences (declined 11.12.2019 and 09.09.2024) unavailing; appellant's non-appearance and non-prosecution; respondent granted liberty to execute the decree; appeal and pending CM applications dismissed without costs. Useful search terms: conditional notice, deposit of decretal amount, FDR Registrar General, dismissal for non-compliance/non-prosecution, execution of decree by holder.

What did the court decide?

Because the notice in the appeal was issued subject to deposit of the decretal amount and the Appellant never deposited it (even after the extended period granted on 25.09.2019, with no further indulgence allowed on 11.12.2019 and 09.09.2024), the appeal deserved to be and is dismissed, along with the pending applications, with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal deserved to be dismissed given that the notice issued on 26.08.2019 was expressly conditional upon deposit of the decretal amount, which the Appellant failed to deposit despite an extended deadline, and given the Appellant's absence/non-prosecution of the appeal.

Court's answer

Because the notice in the appeal was issued subject to deposit of the decretal amount and the Appellant never deposited it (even after the extended period granted on 25.09.2019, with no further indulgence allowed on 11.12.2019 and 09.09.2024), the appeal deserved to be and is dismissed, along with the pending applications, with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh), order dated 11.02.2025 in RFA 765/2019 (with CM APPLs. 37956/2019, 37960/2019 and 37961/2019): Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC filed by Gurdeep Sing Virk against the decree of Rs.3,16,268/- with pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum plus cost (judgment dated 28.09.2018, Civil Suit No. 15465/2016, Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts) in favour of M/s Fortune Insoles Pvt Ltd. Notice issued on 26.08.2019 was expressly conditional on deposit of the decretal amount by way of FDR; the deposit was not made even after a five-week extension granted on 25.09.2019; on 11.12.2019 the Court made clear there was no stay of the decree, and on 09.09.2024 the Respondent was granted liberty to execute the decree. With the Appellant absent and unrepresented, the appeal was dismissed along with the pending applications, with no order as to costs.

A

$~12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- RFA 765/2019 and CM APPLs. 37956/2019, 37960/2019 and 37961/2019

GURDEEP SING VIRK .....Appellant

Through: None.

versus

M/S FORTUNE INSOLES PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Udit Gupta, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 11.02.2025

This appeal was preferred on behalf of the Appellant under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging judgment dated 28.09.2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 15465/2016 by learned Additional District Judge03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the learned Trial Court passed a decree for a sum of Rs.3,16,268/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum along with cost in favour of the Respondent herein. Parties are hereinafter referred to by their litigating status before this Court, for the ease of reference.

Be it noted that on 26.08.2019, notice was issued in the appeal to the Respondent subject to deposit of the decretal amount by way of FDR in the name of the Registrar General of this Court within a week from the date of the order. Thereafter an application being CM APPL. 42802/2019 was filed by the Appellant seeking some more time to deposit the decretal amount, which was allowed vide order dated 25.09.2019 and further period of 05

RFA 765/2019 Page 1 of 3

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 17/02/2025 at 17:32:05

weeks was granted to deposit the decretal amount. On 11.12.2019, when the matter was listed before the Court, it was noticed that decretal amount was not deposited by the Appellant and Court made it clear that there is no stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree and that no further indulgence was called for.

Order sheets indicate that the appeal was adjourned thereafter from time to time due to suspension of work on account of Pandemic COVID-19 and was listed on 29.04.2022 when there was no appearance on behalf of the parties and Court Notice was issued to the parties as also counsels returnable on 15.09.2022. On the adjourned date, Appellant sought adjournment as the arguing counsel was unavailable. Matter was adjourned to 01.03.2023 and thereafter to 22.09.2023 and finally to 09.09.2024.

At this stage, it is relevant to note order dated 09.09.2024. Court observed that there was nothing on record to show that Appellant had deposited the decretal amount in compliance of order dated 26.08.2019. Request of the counsel for the Appellant for extension of time to do so was declined and Respondent was granted liberty to execute the decree, in accordance with law and the matter was adjourned for today.

There is no appearance on behalf of the Appellant despite the matter having been called twice. Counsel for the Respondent submits that notice was issued by the Court on 26.08.2019 subject to deposit of decretal amount within one week. The amount was not deposited within the time granted by the Court. Despite the Court granting indulgence to deposit the decretal amount within a period of 05 weeks vide order dated 25.09.2019, till date there is no compliance by the Appellant and since the notice itself was subject to deposit of the decretal amount, the appeal deserves to be

RFA 765/2019 Page 2 of 3

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 17/02/2025 at 17:32:05

dismissed. It is urged that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and the pendency of this appeal and the prolonged litigation from 2019 is causing harassment to the Respondent, who is a decree holder.

I have heard learned counsel for the Respondent and perused the order sheets.

There is merit in the contention of the Respondent that the notice in the appeal was issued on 26.08.2019 subject to deposit of the decretal amount within one week from the date of the order. The amount was admittedly not deposited. On an application filed by the Appellant for extension of time, further period of 05 weeks was granted to deposit the amount vide order dated 25.09.2019. The amount was not deposited and on 11.12.2019, the Court made it clear that no further indulgence was called for. On 09.09.2024, Court had granted liberty to the Respondent to execute the impugned judgment and decree and declined to grant further time to the Appellant to comply with the order dated 26.08.2019.

Appellant has chosen to remain unrepresented today. It is clear that notice was issued subject to deposit of decretal amount and in the absence of the deposit, this appeal deserves to be dismissed, as rightly flagged by counsel for the Respondent.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed along with pending applications, with no order as to costs.

JYOTI SINGH, J

FEBRUARY 11, 2025/shivam

RFA 765/2019 Page 3 of 3

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 17/02/2025 at 17:32:05

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the appeal deserved to be dismissed given that the notice issued on 26.08.2019 was expressly conditional upon deposit of the decretal amount, which the Appellant failed to deposit despite an extended deadline, and given the Appellant's absence/non-prosecution of the appeal.¶25
The court held
Because the notice in the appeal was issued subject to deposit of the decretal amount and the Appellant never deposited it (even after the extended period granted on 25.09.2019, with no further indulgence allowed on 11.12.2019 and 09.09.2024), the appeal deserved to be and is dismissed, along with the pending applications, with no order as to costs.ratio¶25

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Civil Procedure Code, 1908Section 96¶12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 28.09.2018 in Civil Suit No. 15465/2016, decreeing a sum of Rs.3,16,268/- with pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum plus cost in favour of the Respondent.¶12
learned Additional District Judge03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts · 28.09.2018
Prior proceeding
Appeal preferred by the Appellant under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the trial court decree.¶12
Prior proceeding
Notice issued in the appeal on 26.08.2019, conditional upon deposit of the decretal amount by way of FDR in the name of the Registrar General within a week.¶13
Prior proceeding
Extension sought by Appellant; further period of 05 weeks granted to deposit the decretal amount vide order dated 25.09.2019.¶24
Prior proceeding
On 11.12.2019 the decretal amount remained undeposited; the Court made clear there was no stay of the impugned judgment and decree and that no further indulgence was called for.¶24
Prior proceeding
Appeal adjourned repeatedly due to suspension of work during the COVID-19 pandemic, and later for want of appearances/counsel availability, until listing on 09.09.2024.¶17
Prior proceeding
On 09.09.2024, with no record of any deposit having been made, the Court declined further time to the Appellant and granted the Respondent liberty to execute the impugned judgment and decree in accordance with law.¶24

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
GURDEEP SING VIRK¶4
respondent
M/S FORTUNE INSOLES PVT LTD¶7
Mr. Udit Gupta

Coram

AI extract

MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGHauthor¶9

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Delhi HC
Decided on: 11 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 23 Aug 2019
Case no.: RFA/765/2019
CNR: DLHC010346972019
Bench: Jyoti Singh
Case type: RFA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Jyoti Singh

Akash Deep Vs New Delhi Municipal Council
10 Feb 2025Writ Petition (Civil)
Shri Atul Kumar Garg & Ors. Vs the Special Task Force & Ors.
10 Feb 2025Writ Petition (Civil)
Karmesh Shrama Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi
10 Feb 2025Writ Petition (Civil)
Mount Abu Education Society Regd & Anr. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.
11 Feb 2025Writ Petition (Civil)
M/S Jk Tyre and Industries Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council
11 Feb 2025Writ Petition (Civil)
Smt Alka Verma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.
11 Feb 2025Writ Petition (Civil)

Cite this judgement

Gurdeep Sing Virk v. M/S Fortune Insoles Pvt. Ltd., RFA/765/2019 (DEL), decided on 11 February 2025.

The High Court of Delhi publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Civil Procedure Code, 1908Section 96

View all statutes

Procedural history7

Judgment dated 28.09.2018 in Civil Suit No. 15465/2016, decreeing a sum of Rs.3,16,268/- with pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum plus cost in favour of the Respondent.learned Additional District Judge03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts · 28.09.2018
Appeal preferred by the Appellant under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the trial court decree.
Notice issued in the appeal on 26.08.2019, conditional upon deposit of the decretal amount by way of FDR in the name of the Registrar General within a week.

View full history

Bench / Coram

MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

Parties & counsel