Dismissed¶18

Manoj Prasad v. Bank of Baroda

Delhi HC6 May 2026FAO (COMM)/292/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Manoj Prasad vs Bank of Baroda; FAO (COMM) 292/2025 & CM APPL. 66003/2025; Delhi High Court; Order IX Rule 13 CPC; setting aside decree for want of service of suit summons; guarantor defendant no. 3; loan recovery decree; burden of proving improper service; sufficiency of reasons in impugned order; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The contention that the impugned Order IX Rule 13 order was cryptic and did not deal with the issue of service in detail was rejected; dissatisfaction with the reasons furnished does not by itself render the order illegal or unsustainable in law, particularly as the appellant failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating that he was not properly served in the suit proceedings. ¶17

Manoj Prasad Vs Bank of Baroda — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO (COMM) 292/2025 & CM APPL. 66003/2025

¶4

MANOJ PRASAD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Mr. Piyush M Dwivedi and Mr. Abhishek Dwivedi, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

BANK OF BARODA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Chanchala Kumari, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶8

O R D E R % 06.05.2026

¶9

The appellant (original defendant no. 3) suffered a decree for recovery of the loan amount, for which he stood as guarantor. Defendants no. 1 and 2 were the borrowers.

¶10

It is the case of the appellant that the suit summons were not properly served upon him, as he was employed with the Indian Railways and was discharging duties as a Locomotive Operator. As he was not available at home when the suit summons were served, there can’t be an inference of effective service of summons on the appellant. As a sequel of which, there was denial of an opportunity to represent and resist the suit claim.

¶11

The fact remains that from the order under challenge, which was passed in exercise of powers under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 11/05/2026 at 12:32:06

¶14

Procedure, 1908 (‘ Code ’), the claim of the appellant for setting aside the decree for want of service of suit summons was rejected and a categorical finding was recorded that the suit summons were served on the appellant.

¶15

The burden, as such, shifted on the appellant to demonstrate that the suit summons were not properly served upon him.

¶16

When confronted, we are unable to accept the contention raised by counsel for the appellant that the order under challenge, passed in exercise of powers under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, is cryptic and does not deal with the aforesaid issue in detail.

¶17

It may be so that the reasons furnished do not satisfy the requirement of the appellant, however, that by itself cannot render the order/judgment illegal or unsustainable in law, particularly when the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating that he was not properly served in the suit proceedings. As such, no fault can be noticed in the impugned judgment/order dated 18th August, 2025.

¶18

The appeal, as such, lacks merit and stands dismissed.

¶19

¶20

Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶21

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶22

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶23

AJAY DIGPAUL, J

¶24

MAY 6, 2026/ sky/sk

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 11/05/2026 at 12:32:06

Manoj Prasad v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Prasad v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navneet Kamal Trade Name M/S Soma Trading Co. Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato Ward 38 Zone 1 and Anr.

Gaurav Wadhera Vs Rimple Wadhera & Anr.

Harish Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs

Kamal Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

M/S Hiphonic Private Limited Vs the Principal Commissioner, GST Delhi-East & Ors.

M/S Mctrans Global Logistics Private Limited & Ors. Vs Additional Commissioner Delhi South Commissionerate & Ors.