* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 10.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 16.12.2025

+ FAO 342/2025, CM APPL. 77775/2025, CM APPL. 77776/2025 &

CM APPL. 77777/2025

CHANDRA ABHISHEK RAJ SRIVASTAVA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. With

Mr. Kumar Prashant, Ms. Asmita Singh and Ms. Simran Chabra,

Advocates.

versus

DR. AKSHAY MEHRA AND ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Manik Ahluwalia and Mr.

Devashish Boohankar, Advocates for R-1 along with respondent no.1 in

person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Sections

104 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) has been filed by the defendant in MISC DJ No. 1004 of 2025 (IN CS No. 811 of 2019) on the file of District Judge – 04, Patiala House

Courts, New Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2025, whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and the application under Section of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act) for condonation of delay of 579 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 were dismissed.

2. In this appeal, unless otherwise specified, the parties will be referred to as described in the plaint.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant for eviction, possession and mesne profits. According to the plaintiffs, the suit premises, a farmhouse, was given on lease to the defendant. The lease expired on 30.09.2019, whereupon the defendant was called upon to vacate the suit premises. However, the defendant refused to vacate the tenanted premises. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia seeking dismissal of the suit.

5. During the course of the proceedings, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree for possession on the basis of the admissions made by the defendant in the written statement. The application was opposed by the defendant. The trial court, after hearing both sides, vide order dated 10.02.2021, allowed the application and the suit was partly decreed by granting possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiffs. Subsequent to passing of the aforesaid order dated 10.02.2021, the defendant stopped appearing in the suit and hence, by order dated 09.12.2021, the defendant was set ex-parte, and ultimately an ex-parte judgement and decree was passed on

05.10.2023.

6. According to the defendant, his non-appearance was not with mala fide intentions. It was alleged that the defendant was in judicial custody in a case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation in RC no. 4(s) 2020 bearing Criminal Case No. 12687/2023, from 02.01.2020 and that he remained in judicial custody till January 2024 when he was enlarged on bail. As the defendant was in judicial custody, he was unaware of the suit proceedings and the fact that an ex parte decree and judgment had been passed against him. He became aware of the ex parte decree dated 05.10.2023 on 08.05.2025 only, after receiving notice in the execution petition bearing number 72/2025. Hence, the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree as well as the application for condonation of delay in filing the said application.

7. The plaintiff opposed the applications and contended that the allegation that the defendant became aware of the ex parte decree only on receipt of the notice of the execution petition is false. The defendant, through his counsel, had contested the suit till the suit was partly decreed whereby possession was granted to the plaintiff. There are no sufficient reason(s) for condonation of delay or for setting aside the decree, and hence they prayed for the dismissal of the applications.

8. The trial court, after hearing both sides, dismissed both applications. Aggrieved, the defendant has come up in appeal.

9. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are the landlords of the suit property, i.e., a farmhouse, leased out to the defendant. The landlord and tenan