$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 2362/2025 RAJINDER MOHAN (HUF) & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Anil Kr. Airi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arvind Bhatt, Mr. Asheesh Kumar Misra, Mr. Kuber Giri, Mr. Vishal Tyagi and Mr. Harsh Gautam, Advocates versus RAJA DEEPAK MADAN & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vineet Bhagat and Ms. Arya Nagpal, Advocates for R-1 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R

% 11.12.2025 CM APPL. 76881/2025 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 2362/2025 & CM APPL. 76882/2025 (stay)

2. Petitioners have assailed order 04.10.2025 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, whereby they were issued notice in the review application filed by the present respondent no. 1.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 1 and accepts notice. Mr. Bhagat, Advocate undertakes to file vakalatnama during the course of the day.

4. Ordinarily, a single line order of issuance of notice would not be interfered with in proceedings under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

But in the present case, there appears to be something more than that meets the eye.

5. The review application filed by the present respondent no. 1 pertains to the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge on Original Side of this Court. Therefore, the review if at all sustainable could have been filed only in this Court because after change of pecuniary jurisdiction, it is only the pending suits that were transferred in the year 2015. Further, in the judgment dated 29.08.2012, there was no liability fixed against the present petitioners. The judgment dated 29.08.2012 was passed in the suit filed by the Indian Bank and the decree was for money, which would have gone to the exchequer. The decree was against the present respondent no. 1.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 contends that review against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court can be filed before the Principal District & Sessions Judge. On this aspect, I would not like to comment at present because the issue is pending before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge.

7. It would also be significant to notice, as informed by both sides that execution of the decree dated 29.08.2012 failed because the decree holder/Indian Bank could not serve notice on the judgement debtor, the present respondent no. 1, for the reason that address of respondent no. 1 was not available.

8. Now that the present respondent no. 1 has appeared, keeping in mind that the decree dealt with public money, notice be issued to respondent no. 2/Indian Bank, returnable on 11.05.2026 in Advance List. As requested, respondent no. 1 may file reply within four weeks.

9. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order as well as the proceedings pending before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge to the extent against the present petitioners shall remain stayed.

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J DECEMBER 11, 2025 ‘rs’