$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 02^nd July, 2025 + CM(M) 3768/2024, CM APPL. 64761/2024 & CM APPL. 21097/2025 MS. NAINA HARPALANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Garg, Ms. Mustafa Alam, Mr.

Ankit Gupta, Mr. Dev Kumar and Mukesh Kumar Yadav, Advocates along with petitioner in person.

versus RAVI KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Kr. Jain, Advocate (Through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioner, who is defending a summary suit, is aggrieved by dismissal of her application moved under Order XXXVII Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The grievance of the petitioner/defendant is, merely, limited to the effect that she was never served with summons for judgment and her oral acceptance in this regard before the learned Trial Court has no legal sanctity.

3. Admittedly, when the abovesaid summary suit was filed by the plaintiff, the defendant was duly served with the summons on 12.08.2022. Defendant even filed appearance before the learned Trial Court along with Vakalatnama of her counsel.

4. On 22.08.2022, the plaintiff had sought some time to apply for issuance of summons for judgment and the matter was thereafter adjourned for 17.10.2022. It was, again, adjourned as the plaintiff had not taken any step for issuance of summons for judgment.

5. When the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 12.01.2023, the summons for judgment received unexecuted with the report that no such lady Signature Not Verified CM(M) 3768/2024 1 Digitally Signed was residing at the given address. The order sheet dated 12.01.2023 reads as under:-

“Present: Sh. Rahul Baijal, ld counsel for plaintiff.

Summons for judgment sent to the defendant at the address furnished by the defendant by way of appearance are received with report of the process server that no such lady is residing at the address as stated by the neighbor. The summons have also been sent through post and the postal receipt is filed by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Let the delivery report be called from the postal department for 02.02.2023.”

6. The controversy revolves around the proceeding which took place before the learned Trial Court on 02.02.2023 and, therefore, it will be appropriate to extract such order as well. It reads as under:-

“Present: Ld counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant in person with ld counsel.

PRI Prem Chand is present and report is filed which shows that article sent through post has been delivered on 25.11.2022 at the address.

The summons for judgment have been ordered to be issued on 01.12.2022 and have been issued by the Ahlmad on 06.12.2022. The service of the summons issued on 06.12.2022 is not possible on 25.11.2022. The counsel for the plaintiff stated that the copy of the application was sent by the plaintiff by post to the defendant and inadvertently the postal receipt was filed on the last date of hearing pertaining to that application.

Defendant is present in the court with her counsel Sh. Pankaj Dabas, who filed memo of appearance today with undertaking that vakalatnama will be filed in due course. The counsel appearing for the defendant prayed for supplying the copy of application for issuance of summons of judgment stating that the defendant is accepting the summons of judgment orally and will file leave to defend in the matter, Copy of the application is provided to the defendant. The defendant may take appropriate steps as per law.

Put up on 27.04.2023 for further proceedings.”

7. It is, thus, quite clear that on said date, the defendant had appeared before the learned Trial Court along with her counsel. The counsel, himself, prayed to the learned Trial Court for supplying copy of application for issuance of Signature Not Verified CM(M) 3768/2024 2 Digitally Signed summons for judgment and made a statement before the learned Trial Court that defendant was accepting the same before the Court and it was also undertaken that she would file leave to defend in the matter. So much so,