$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24^th December, 2024 + C.R.P. 216/2019 & CM APPL. 43492/2019 & CM APPL.

40931/2023 (1)CAP CAB INDIA LTD.

Through its Director.

(2)MR. JATINDER PAL SINGH Director, Cap Cab India Ltd.

Both at Plot No.WZ-663 Office No.202, 2^nd Floor, Madipur, New Delhi-63 .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate Versus MITTAL CABLES INDUSTRIES Through its Proprietor Kulbhushan Mittal SU-214, Pitampura, New Delhi .....Respondent Through: Ms. Suruchi Mittal, Mr. Shubham & Ms. Deepali Dasgupta, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC, 1908”) has been filed on behalf of the Revisionists/Defendants challenging the Order

1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed dated 03.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in CS No. 579022/2016, whereby the Petitioner’s Application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of CPC, 1908 was dismissed.

2. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the Revisionists/ Defendants that allegedly the service has been affected on the address at 82-B, DDA LIG Flats, Madhuban Apartments, Near Madipur Metro station, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, but the Revisionist-Company never functioned on the said address and no service of summons, at any point of time, was affected on the above address.

3. It is further submitted that the Respondent-Company was facing liquidation proceedings since the year 2017 and it is only during the Execution Proceedings that one Shri Mahender Kumar, who is an employee of his son, informed the Petitioner/Defendant about the summons. It is only after receiving this information that the Petitioner came to know about the decree against him and thus, moved an appropriate Application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12.02.2018.

4. It is further submitted that the Invoices relied upon by the Respondent/Plaintiff are fabricated documents and service upon the Revisionists/Defendant has been manipulated.

5. Learned counsel for the Revisionist/Defendant further submits that allegedly service has been effected upon the address 82-B, DDA LIG Flats, Madhuban Apartments, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, where his son had been doing business and it cannot be considered as a deemed service upon the Revisionist/Defendant.

2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

6. It is further submitted that the learned District Judge fell in error in dismissing the Application without appreciating that the Revisionist/Defendant had never functioned from the given address. Also, there were two more addresses of the Revisionist/Defendant, one F-123, Industrial Area, District Alwar, Bhiwadi and the other one at Khasra-766, Burari Village, Delhi, which was with the knowledge of respondent/Plaintiff but no summons were issued on those addresses. It is therefore, contended that the impugned Order dismissing the Application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of CPC, 1908 filed by the Revisionist/Defendant, is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff, however, has explained that the address of 82-B, DDA LIG Flats, Madhuban Apartments, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, was mentioned on the Invoices issued in the name of the Revisionist/Defendant-Company where the goods had been delivered. Furthermore, there is a clear endorsement on the Invoices in respect of a Cheque in the sum of Rs.9,00,000/- having been given by the Revisionist/Defendant on

30.05.2015.

8. It is claimed that the service on the address had been correctly effected, but intentionally avoided by Representative of the Revisionist/Defendant, who refused to accept the summons. Furthermore, the service in the Execution Petition, pursuant to which the Revisionist/Defendant has claimed that he came to know about the Decree, was affected on the same address where the Judgment Debtor was found present and he undertook to a