$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 202/2025 MR. SUMIT BUTALIA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S TS INDUSTRIES .....Appellant Through: Counsel (appearance not given).

versus SH. JITENDER, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHANT MOTOR (INDIA)

.....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 05.12.2025 CM APPL. 76787/2025 Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed-of.

CM APPL. 76789/2025 (condonation of 41 days’ delay in re-filing For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit, the delay is condoned.

2. The application is allowed and disposed-of.

CM APPL. 76788/2025 (permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates and events)

3. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.

4. The lengthy synopsis and list of dates are taken on record.

5. The application stands disposed-of.

RSA 202/2025 & CM APPL. 76786/2025 (stay), CM APPL.

No.76790/2025 (seeking exemption from filing trial court record)

6. By way of the present second appeal filed under section 100 read with section 151 Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellant impugns judgment dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-12, Central District, Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi in appeal bearing RCA DJ No.47/2025, whereby the appellant’s appeal against judgment dated 22.08.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge- 14, Central District, Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi in suit bearing No.

250/15 has been dismissed.

7. Vide judgment dated 22.08.2015, the learned trial court has passed an ex-parte decree in a suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits, that the appellant was never served with the summons in the suit and was unaware of the proceedings filed by the respondent up until 30.07.2022 when the appellant was served with notice of the execution proceedings arising from the ex-parte decree.

9. Counsel further submits that thereafter, the appellant filed objections in the execution proceedings instead of filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking setting-aside of the ex-parte decree.

10. The objections filed in the execution proceedings were dismissed and subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which application itself came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2024 by the learned trial court, recording that the appellant had knowledge of the ex-parte decree when he was served with notice in the execution proceedings on 30.07.2022 and yet the application under Order IX Rule 13 came to be filed about a year and a half later i.e. on 30.01.2024.

11. Learned counsel submits, that the foundation of the entire proceedings, namely the purported service of summons in the suit upon the appellant, is flawed which this court must verify, by at least summoning the trial court record.

12. In view of the above, CM APPL. No.76790/2025 is allowed.

13. Accordingly, let trial court record alongwith first appellate court record be requisitioned in electronic form; and copies be supplied to counsel on request.

14. CM APPL. No.76790/2025 stands disposed-of.

15. Learned counsel submits, that the decretal amount has already been deposited in the execution proceedings and is likely to be released to the respondent in those proceedings.

16. However, considering the circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to grant any interim relief to the appellant.

17. CM APPL. No. 76786/2025 is dismissed and stands disposed-of.

18. It is made clear that no notice is being issued on the appeal at this stage.

19. For considering the submission as to the service of summons upon the appellant, re-notify on 08^th April 2026.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J DECEMBER 5, 2025/ds