The court emphasizes the need to resolve disputes on merits rather than on technicalities and allows the delay in filing the written statement, subject to compensatory costs.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral):

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Civil Judge-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS SCJ 2170/2021, dismissing the Petitioner's application filed under Order IX Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC').

2. The Petitioner herein is the defendant and the Respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record the orders passed by the Trial Court and the orders passed by the Appellate Court under cover of an index dated 01.08.2023, the same are taken on record.

3.1 The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the civil suit has been filed by the Respondent, herein for recovery of Rs. 1,96,975/- (Rupees one lakh Ninety-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Five Rupees Only) with respect to the goods dispatched to the Petitioner by the Respondent.

3.2 He states that it is the defence of the Petitioner herein that the payment towards the goods delivered stands paid and the Petitioner herein is in possession of a receipt executed by the Respondent, which duly evidences the payment of monies and receipt thereof by the Respondent.

3.3 At the outset, he states that he admits there has been negligence on the part of the Petitioner herein, in filing his written statement upon receipt of service of summons on 18.07.2022.

3.4 He states that as per the process server report the Petitioner was served on his WhatsApp with double tick, but since the Petitioner is of 55 years of age, suffering from ailment and not well-versed with using WhatsApp, he was not aware that the summons have been served on him for appearing in the matter and therefore he could not appear before the Trial Court. He further states that due to non-appearance of the Petitioner, the Trial Court closed the right of the Petitioner to file his written statement and proceeded ex parte.

3.5 He states that, however, grave prejudice will be caused to the Petitioner if he is not permitted to place on record his written statement and the suit is decided without his defence being considered.

3.6 The learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that legal costs be imposed on the Petitioner for the delay, however, he may be granted an opportunity to file his written statement and lead his evidence.

3.7 He states, on instructions, that the Petitioner shall not seek any adjournment before the Trial Court and will remain present on each date. He further states that the Petitioner shall take all steps to ensure that he is duly represented by a counsel and no adjournment is sought on the ground of unavailability of the counsel.

4. None appears for the Respondent despite advance service.

5. This Court has considered the submissions counsel of the Petitioner and perused the paper book.

6. The Petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 22.09.2022 and the matter was thereof listed for plaintiff's evidence on 12.12.2022. However, no evidence was led by the plaintiff on the said date.

6.1 The Petitioner herein filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC on 07.02.2023 for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.03.2023. The suit was still at the stage of plaintiff evidence and it had not been led. However, the Trial Court in the facts of the case was not persuaded by the explanation offered by the Petitioner for his non-appearance and dismissed the application.

6.2 The Petitioner herein impugned the order dated 13.03.2023 by filing an appeal MCA DJ 30/2023; notice was issued on the said appeal and proceedings before the Trial Court was stayed until the next date of hearing i.e. 17.07.2023.

6.3 Upon an objection being raised by the Respondent with respect to the maintainability of the appeal, Petitioner herein conceded to the said objection and agreed to avail his remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, th