Litigants should not suffer for the negligence of their lawyers; courts should allow cases to be heard on merits rather than on technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.

1. Heard the respective counsels.

2. The challenge in the present proceedings is to the impugned order dated 19^th July, 2025, passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court)- 05, West, Delhi in Case No. MiscDJ/610/2025 titled as Surinder Mohan Jindal Vs. Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja .

3. The aforesaid order was passed by the District Judge in exercise of powers under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”), whereby the prayer of the present appellant (original defendant/Judgement Debtor) for setting aside the ex parte decree came to be dismissed.

4. The facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are that the respondent (original plaintiff/Decree Holder) initiated proceedings for recovery of Rs.1,01,97,217/- based on business transaction.

5. Summons were issued on 4^th September, 2024 and served on 13^th September, 2024. It is alleged that the appellant/defendant engaged a lawyer, Mr. Vivek Luthra, who was related to him, and after handing over the papers to the said lawyer, sought additional documents as the documents received were illegible. It appears that in the interregnum the said lawyer failed to put in his appearance for the appellant/defendant in the suit.

6. A subsequent attempt was made on the part of the appellant/defendant to pursue the lawyer to file his appearance and it was assured; however, it appears that neither appearance was placed on record nor the written statement filed. Subsequent thereto, on 14^th November, 2025, the appellant/defendant was proceeded ex parte.

7. After the aforesaid order, the respondent/plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment to the plaint. The suit was initiated in the name of a proprietary firm, however the proprietor was not impleaded resulting in the amendment was moved. The said amendment came to be allowed on the very same date. The learned Trial Court received the evidence and closed the same whereafter the arguments were concluded in one go. All these events occurred on 11^th December 2024.

8. As a sequel an ex parte decree came to be passed which has prompted the appellant/defendant to invoke the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

9. After the aforesaid decree was put for the execution, it is claimed by the appellant/defendant that he came to know about the ex parte decree. This prompted him to initiate the proceedings, alleging that after summons were received on 13^th September, 2024, he contacted the lawyer who happened to be his relative, and post assurance given by the said lawyer, he was made to understand and given the impression that appropriate steps would be taken to defend the suit as per law.

10. It is further claimed that the appellant/defendant relied upon the advice given by the lawyer, and the lawyer has failed not only to place his appearance on record but also to file his written statement, which led to the suit being proceeded ex parte.

11. It is specifically claimed in the application that the appellant/defendant is a heart patient and has undergone a bypass surgery and, subsequent thereto, he has been suffering from a heart ailment. He is under advice from expert doctors that to undergo surgery again. For the aforesaid cause, the appellant/defendant remained absent in the proceedings and, as such, there was sufficient cause on his part demonstrated before the Trial Court to make out a case under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside an ex parte decree.

12. The aforesaid contentions are sought to be substantive based on the documentary evidence.