Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J
INDIRA GUPTA AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
PAMVI TISSUES LTD. AND ANR. – Respondent
RFA 801/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Senior Advocate, Mr. Shubhankar Sengupta, Mr. Aarush Bhatia, Ms. Meghna Jandu
For the Respondents:
The right to fair representation is vital, particularly when procedural errors lead to judgments against deceased parties.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 151, 96, and Order VIII, Order XLI - Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2017 - Appellants are the legal representatives of a deceased proprietor - The delay in filing the appeal was due to procedural issues and lack of representation - The learned trial court granted unconditional leave to defend but did not allow adequate time for the appellants to file their written statement - The appeal challenges the judgment against a deceased party and the trial court's errors in procedure. (Paras 4-17)
(B) Civil Procedure - The appellants were denied their right to fair hearing after being left unrepresented and not notified adequately, leading to procedural missteps by the lower court. (Paras 8-17)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges a judgment in a summary suit where the appellants claim they are not liable for their late predecessor's debts. The trial court issued orders that constrained the time for a written statement and led to proceedings against a deceased individual.
Findings of Court:
The court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment while issues of representation and procedural correctness were raised. The appellants did not receive sufficient notice, compromising their case.
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court erred in its application of time limits regarding the filing of the written statement and if judgment was delivered against a deceased individual.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the right to fair representation is fundamental, especially when the appellants were unrepresented and provided no adequate notice, affecting their ability to defend themselves properly.
Result: The judgment and decree shall remain stayed until the next date without requiring deposit of the awarded amount at this stage.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against judgment passed against deceased. (Para 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. trial court granted leave to defend due to triable issues. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. appellants were not adequately represented or notified. (Para 8 , 9 , 14) |
| 4. court stayed judgment until representation issues resolved. (Para 16 , 18 , 24) |
O R D E R
% 27.08.2025 CM APPL. 53614/2025 Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.
Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.
The application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 53613/2025 By way of the present application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the appellants seek condonation of about 26 days’ delay in re-filing the regular first appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit, the delay is condoned.
3. The application is allowed and disposed-of.
RFA801/2025 Page1of7 RFA 801/2025 CM APPL. 53611/2025 (for stay)
CM APPL. 53612/2025 (for condonation of 5612 days delay in filing CM APPL. 53615/2025 (seeking permission to file additional documents 4. By way of the present regular first appeal filed under section 96 read with Order XLI CPC, the appellants impugn judgment and decree dated 08.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-13, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in suit bearing CS No.620827/2016.
5. Mr. Ashish Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits, that the summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC was originally filed against Mr. Bharat Bhushan, as sole proprietor of M/s Import Export Sales Co.; and on the passing-away of Mr. Bharat Bhushan sometime in 2010, the present appellants (being his widow and son, respectively) were substituted as his legal representatives in the suit, vide order dated 29.08.2011.
6. Mr. Dholakia argues, that vide order dated 11.10.2017 made in the suit, unconditional leave-to-defend was granted to the appellants, with the learned trial court noting that the appellants had raised triable issues, in the following words:
“26. Defendant categorically stated that books of account of the defendant shows a debit balance of Rs 66,44,021/- and said balance was duly confirmed by the authorised signatory of the plaintiff company subject to certain entries amounting to Rs 4,70,426/-. Duly confirmed statement of account for the year 2003- 2004 has been annexed as R-1. Perusal of the statement of account annexure R-1 shows that authorised signatory of plaintiff under the stampof theplaintiff companyhas confirmedthe debit balanceof Rs 66,44,021/- as on 12.01.2004 subject to certain entries amounting to Rs 4,70,426/-. If plaintiff had certain amount outstanding against RFA801/2025 Page2of7 the defendant how plaintiff would have confirmed the debit balance against the plaintiff in the books of account of the defendant. No plea of forgery etc qua this confirmation balance/ statement has been taken by the plaintiff nor issuance of such confirmation has been disputed. This ground in itself is sufficient for defendant to haveunconditional leave todefendthesuit.
*****
“30. Letter dt 16.07.2001 Annnexure-R-58 is in original and is on the letter head of the plaintiff company. Certain portion of the saidletter is quotedas under:
“As you are aware that the company is having severe financial constraints and in order to revive the company, we require more working capital funds. Since Union Bank of India has already sanctioned to the company Bill Discounting Limit, it would be helpful to us if we raise the Bills/Hundies for the supplies made to you which would be payable by you after 30 days. Thus, we would be able to utilize the Limit as well as it wouldhelpustogenerateShortTermWorkingCapital.
Please further note that you would be allowed Cash Discount on the Hundies raised by use as the payments has alreadybeenreceivedbyusinadvance.
As per the Bank's procedure, if the Hundies are not retired on the due date, the bank would debit the amount to our accountalongwithinterestandthesamewo
