IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ JAIN, J
M/S SWADESHI DHAM – Appellant
Versus
M/S MABEL APPAREL PVT LTD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner's grievances against the dismissal of the applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.01.2025 whereby its three applications have been dismissed. These are under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Order IX Rule 7 CPC and under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass.
3. The suit in question is a commercial suit and, despite the alleged service upon defendant, it never appeared before learned Trial Court and, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 25.01.2023.
4. Fact, however, remains that on 18.07.2023 i.e. after more than a period of six months when it was proceeded ex-parte, defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that there was no cause of action in the matter.
5. During pendency of the abovesaid application, he moved another application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC praying therein that the ex-parte order Signature Not Verified CM(M) 1566/2025 1 Digitally Signed be set aside and in support of such its prayer, it also moved an application seeking condonation of delay.
6. In its application moved under Order IX Rul
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.