J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-04, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in Civil Suit bearing no. 662/2017, titled as “Dr. Rakesh Kumar HUF vs. M/s Gardenia India Ltd. & Ors.” wherein the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 06.12.2018. Thus, the present petition has been preferred invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Mr. Amit Bhatia, the learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is a body corporate and petitioner no.2 is the chairman of petitioner no.1 who have been impleaded as defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit filed by the respondent seeking recovery of Rs. 40,60,000/- with pendente lite and future interest. Further, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma is the Managing Director of petitioner no. 1 company and defendant no. 2 in the suit before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “defendant no. 2”). The learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.08.2017 had issued summons of the suit and notice of the interim application against the petitioners returnable on 26.09.2017. However, on the said date of hearing, summons were issued afresh to petitioner nos.1 and 2 on filing of PF/RC returnable on 29.01.2018. As per the report appended by the Ahlmad on 27.01.2018, it has been stated that the “steps were not taken” for

29.01.2018.

3. The learned counsel also submitted that from 29.01.2018 till 06.12.2018, fresh summons were not ordered to be served upon petitioner nos.1 and 2 as the respondent and his counsel kept taking adjournments on one pretext or the other.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that in the meanwhile, the respondent had instituted a compliant case bearing no.23557/2016 titled as “Dr. Rakesh Kumar HUF vs. M/s Gardenia India Ltd & Ors.” under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner company received the summons of the aforesaid case and appeared before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, where they moved an application for compounding the case. In view thereof, the compounding application was allowed and the petitioners deposited the entire payment of the dishonored cheques amounting to Rs. 26,68,150/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-. The learned counsel stated that during the pendency of the said complaint case, the respondent never informed the Court or the petitioners that a civil suit arising out of the same facts and on the basis of same dishonored cheques has been filed and is pending before the learned Trial Court.

5. The learned counsel submitted that on one occasion, an official of the petitioner company was trying to locate the orders of the complaint case and was shocked to discover on the website the pendency of a civil suit before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioners engaged a counsel and upon inspection of the Trial Court record, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that they had been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.12.2018.

6. After learning of this ex-parte order, the petitioners moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC wherein the petitioners put forth the facts and circumstances of the case including the fraud played upon by the respondent in manipulating the service report and filing false affidavits contrary to the judicial record. However, the learned Trial Court did not consider the above submissions and summarily dismissed the application moved on behalf of the petitioners.

7. The learned counsel also submitted that since the respondent was aware of the truth regarding the service reports, he did not even choose to furnish reply to the application moved on behalf of the petitioners under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. Nonethele