This Division Bench noted the non-appearance of the applicant to SA/TolJroz, attrubuted to disinterest in pursuing the case post-default notice, and dismissed the matter in default for non-prosecution.
The SA/TolJroz was dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
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.
Debts RecoveryTribunal-Il'Delhi
sLlTol2o2s -S}IUBHAM HOUSING VARANIEETKAUd V' DEVELOPMENTFINANCE LTD
Item no.43
30.07.2026
Present:None for aPPlicant Sh. BaljeetSingh' Proxy Counsel for Sh' Subodh rumaiSingh, Counsel for respondentFI
MatteristakenthroughVideoConferencing/HybridMode.
Noneappearedonbehalfoftheapplicanton2g.03.2025and t2.o2.2o2.6.Despiteissuanceofdefaultnoticenoneappeared today.Itappearsthattheapplicantsarenotinterestedin pursuingthecase.Hence,thepresentSA/Tolzrozsisdismissed in defaultfor non-Prosecution'
File beconsigned to records'
€.f, (SUSHIL KOMARRASTOGI) PRESIDINGOFFICER DRT-II,Delhi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present SA recall is maintainable when the applicant failed to appear after default notice.
SHRUBHAM HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE LTD
RESPONDENT
SUSHIL KOMAR RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
