* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 7^th January, 2026

Pronounced on: 12th January, 2026

+ RSA 112/2024 & CM APPL. 37166/2024

MS. ROMA JAIN W/o Sambhav Jain

R/o C-1/3D-1,

Model Town-III,

Delhi-110009.

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Gurbaksh Singh and Mr. Arjun

Dhamija, Advocates.

versus

M/S R.K. STOCKHOLDING PVT.LTD

Through its Director Corporate Office at:

A-7, Block B-1, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. J. P. Pathak, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant Roma Jain (Defendant in the main Suit) against the Judgment dated 28.03.2024 whereby the learned ADJ-04, Saket Courts, New Delhi has upheld the Ex-parte Decree in the Civil Suit No.1677/2019 dated

19.12.2019, whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff/ Respondent was decreed in the sum of Rs.69,792/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.

2. The brief facts are that a Suit for Recovery of Rs.69,792/- along with interest @ 18% per annum was filed by the Respondent against the Appellant, who failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 09.12.2019.

3. The Plaintiff/Respondent examined PW1 Navdeep Varshney Director/AR of the Respondent Company who proved the requisite documents. On the appreciation of the documents and evidence, the Trial Court decreed the Suit of the Respondent and held he was entitled to recovery of Rs.69,792/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.

4. Subsequently, the Execution proceedings were initiated by the Respondent, in which the Appellant appeared. Thereafter, he moved an Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC dated 21.12.2022, to challenge the Ex-parte Judgment dated 19.12.2019. This Application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, vide Order dated 08.07.2023.

5. An Appeal was preferred by the Appellant against the Ex-parte Judgment dated 19.12.2019, but the same was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide Order dated 28.03.2024, which is the subject matter of the present Appeal.

6. The grounds on which the Impugned Judgment has been challenged is that the Suit was barred by limitation, which was not considered by the learned Trial Court and also by the learned Appellate Court. It has not been appreciated that the First Appeal under Section 96 CPC is independent remedy and has different yardstick for its decision and cannot be dismissed on the ground that the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed, even without looking into the merits of the Suit and also that it was barred by limitation. The Ledger Account filed by the Plaintiff stated that after 19.09.2016 there was no trading done by the Defendant. The Suit ought to have been filed on order before 18.09.2019, whereas the present Suit was filed on 03.10.2019. The Suit was therefore, barred by Limitation.

7. On merits, it is contended that the Plaintiff/Respondent had not placed on record documents of sale and purchase of shares that were effected by the Plaintiff, on the instructions of the Appellant. As per the Financial Ledger of the Respondent for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 there was a credit entry of Rs.12,72,429.07/- in favour of the Respondent on 19.09.2016 and there was no trading thereafter, and the question arose as to how could the liability of Rs.69.792/- be created. The perusal of the Statement of Account relied upon by the Respondent clearly reflects that these accounts have been manipulated and fabricated and the alleged liability has been fastened upon the Appellant illegally. These aspects have not been discussed in the impugned Judgment of the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned ADJ. Therefore, the impugned Judgment is liable to be set aside.

8. The Respondent in his Reply has taken a preliminary objection that the Appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts and the present Appeal amounts to gross abuse and misuse