1. The plaintiffs instituted this suit for recovery of Rs.9,93,27,786.68 against the defendant in which the summons were issued to the defendant on 29th August, 2011. On 08th February, 2012, Mr.Kunal Duggal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the defendant. However, defendant’s counsel did not appear thereafter, whereupon the Court issued fresh summons. The defendant was served by publication in Lok Satta newspaper, Mumbai edition on 02nd May, 2013. The defendant was proceeded ex parte on 18th November, 2013 and an ex parte decree was passed against the defendant on 23rd May, 2014.

2. On 23rd November, 2017, the defendant filed I.A.3420/2018 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the ex parte decree along with I.A.3421/2018 for condonation of delay of 475 days in seeking restoration and I.A.3422/2018 for condonation of delay of 75 days in re-filing the application for restoration.

3. Vide order dated 17th July, 2018, this Court issued notice on the aforesaid three applications and directed the defendant to disclose his defence on merits on an affidavit and file all original relevant documents relating to this case within his power and possession. The defendant has filed an affidavit dated 24th July, 2018 and disclosed his defence on merits to which the plaintiffs have filed their response.

4. The defendant is seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree on the ground that the defendant was never personally served with the summons and he was not aware of these proceedings till 31st March, 2017. According to the defendant, the publication in a local Marathi newspaper, Lok Satta, is not a proper service as the defendant does not subscribe to the newspaper, Lok Satta and neither writes nor speaks Marathi. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had deliberately avoided serving the defendant and instead preferred the application for substituted service. The order dated 12th March, 2013 allowing the substituted service is in contravention of Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Chapter XXI Rules 14 and 15 of Delhi High Court Rules. The defendant has also raised the plea of illness from various ailments in his application. The defendant is seeking condonation of delay of 475 days in filing the restoration application on the ground that he was not served and was not aware of these proceedings till 31st March, 2017. The defendant has also raised the plea of medical ailments in the application for condonation of delay. The defendant is seeking condonation of delay of 75 days in re-filing the application on the ground of illness and that the defendant was travelling out of India.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant urged at the time of the hearing that the defendant was not duly served with the summons and therefore, the ex parte decree is liable to be set aside. With respect to the delay in seeking restoration, it is submitted that the defendant was suffering from various ailments for which he was admitted in hospital on various dates. Reliance is placed on R.K. Sharma v. Ashok Nagar Welfare Association & Co., 2001 (57) DRJ 722 (DB), Smt. Renu Sharma v. Titan Industries Ltd., AIR 2007 Del 151 and Neerja Realtors Private Limited. V. Janglu (Dead) Through Legal Representative, (2018) 2 SCC 649.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs urged at the time of the hearing that the defendant’s counsel appeared before this Court on 08th February, 2012. It is further submitted that the dasti summons were duly served on the defendant’s counsel, Mr.Kunal Duggal on 21st November, 2012 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate which is recorded in the order dated 21st November, 2012. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs served dasti summons on the defendant’s counsel, Mr. Kunal Duggal in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 21st November, 2012 and the defendant’s counsel informed the defendant about the proceedings. It is submitted that the defendant was well aware o