* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 14th November, 2025

Judgment pronounced on: 28th November, 2025

+ FAO 53/2023 & CM APPL 11451/2023

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Anshuman, SPC with Mr. Vaibhav Sood, Advocates.

versus

DINESH KUMAR JAIN & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Adv.(GNCTD) with Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocate.

Mr. Jittin Dua, Advocate.

Mr. Vinay Gupta, Mr. Ram Manohar Singh, Ms. Chandni Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC) impugns the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, in Misc. DJ No. 21/2022 in O.S. 2738/2016, whereby the appellants’/defendants’ application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 11.02.2020 was dismissed on the dual grounds of limitation and absence of sufficient cause.

2. The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title, possession, and consequential reliefs, originally registered as CS No. 158/2012 on the file of this Court. The appellants/defendants appeared through counsel and filed their written statement contesting the respondent’s/plaintiff’s claim.

3. Consequent upon enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit stood transferred to the District Court pursuant to Notification dated 24.11.2015, and the record was made returnable to the Court of the learned District Judge vide order dated 27.04.2016.

4. According to the appellants/defendants, they obtained  knowledge of the ex-parte decree only when they received notice in Execution Petition No. 113/2020, pursuant to which they immediately took steps to file application for setting aside the ex-parte decree which application was taken on record on 14.01.2022 along with an application for condonation of delay.

5. The respondent/plaintiff filed objection contending that no reasons have been made out for condonation of the long delay and that the appellants/defendants were well aware of the pendency of the suit and the decree that was passed thereafter as repeated notice had been given by the trial court. As no reasons are made out, the respondents/plaintiffs canvassed for a dismissal of the application.

6. The trial court after hearing both sides, vide the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 dismissed the application primarily on the grounds that the application was grossly time-barred; that no valid or complete application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Act) was filed; and that even assuming limitation could be condoned, the appellants/defendants had failed to show sufficient cause for non-appearance, given the earlier appearances of police officials and the “long and unexplained silence” thereafter. Aggrieved, they appellants/defendants have come up in appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the trial court erred in dismissing Misc. DJ No. 21/2022 on the ground that there was no application filed for condonation of delay, when in fact along with the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the appellants/defendants had filed a separate application under Section 5 of the Act for condonation of delay.

7.1 The learned counsel would also vehemently contend that the appellants/defendants became aware of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 11.02.2020 only when process was received in Execution Petition No. 113/2020 on or about 06.09.2021 and again on 15.12.2021, and that the recall application was filed promptly on 27.01.2022. It was further emphasised that the appellants/ defendants acted with diligence once knowledge of the decree was acquired and that there was no deliberate default.

7.2 The learned counsel would further augment his contention by explaining that the non-appearance before the t