Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17862
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Multitex Filtration Engineers Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Johnson Controls India Pvt Ltd – Respondent
FAO (COMM) 252/2026 | CM APPL. 57469/2026 | CM APPL. 57470/2026 | CM APPL. 57471/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohit Negi
For the Respondents: Aayushya Aankul, Sarthak Miglani
An ex-parte decree may be set aside on conditional terms to allow a party to defend on merits if significant factors like an arbitration clause or prior participation in mediation exist, even if service at the registered office was technically valid.
Headnote:(A) Service of Summons - Registered Office - Service effected at the registered office of a company is considered valid service; the party is expected to be diligent in monitoring the status of the suit. (Para 16)
(B) Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - A conditional order may be granted to allow a defendant to defend a suit on merits, particularly where the party participated in pre-litigation mediation and an arbitration clause exists, notwithstanding negligence or recalcitrant conduct. (Para 18, 19)
(C) Arbitration Clause - Consideration of Agreement - The existence of an arbitration clause in the purchase order is a significant factor that warrants providing the defendant an opportunity to raise the plea before the trial court. (Para 18)
Issues: Whether the ex-parte decree and the order dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC should be set aside to allow the defendant to contest the suit on merits.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, ‘CPC’), inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2026 passed by the ld. District Judge (Commercial Court)-13, Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Misc DJ No. 130/26. Vide the impugned order, an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC has been dismissed by the Trial Court.
3. The brief background of the present case is that a suit for recovery was filed before the ld. District Judge by the Respondent/ Plaintiff -Johnson Controls India Pvt. Ltd. against the Appellant/Defendant-Multitex Filtration Engineers Ltd. seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 58,35,390/- along with interest.
4. In the said suit, summons were issued by the Commercial Court on 3rd May, 2024 in the following terms:
“Issue summons for settlement of issues to the defendant through by all modes i.e. through Process Server, email, whatsapp, registered AD-speed post and approved Courier returnable on 04.06.2024, subject to filing of PF, RC/AD deposit of necessary charges within 07 working days directing the defendant to file written statement within 30 days from the date of service.
5. It appears from the record, which has been filed before this Court that the Respondent/Plaintiff served the Appellant/Defendant through the Process Server on 10th May, 2024. The Process Server’s report in Hindi is extracted below:
[[IMG_1]]
6. The translated copy of the above report is set out below:
“Ravinder Pandey Clerk
10/5/24 1:15 PM Sir, Today on 10-05-2024, arrived at the designated spot, which is 217 Hans Bhawan, Wing-1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-2, and located the firm M/S MULTITEX FILTRATION ENGINEERS LTD. The clerk present on the spot who was sitting at the RECEPTION, took the summons and copy and read it over to his master/owner and with his permission appended his name Ravinder Pandey and affixed the stamp and thereby the summons were served. No witness was found on the spot. Therefore, the report is submitted.
Sd/-
10.5.24 I state under oath that the above report is true.
Sd/-
10.5.24”
7. The Commercial Court on 25th July, 2024 records that the service has been effected through the Process Server at the Registered Office of the Appellant/Defendant on 10th May, 2024 and accordingly, since the Appellant/Defendant had not filed the Written Statement, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. The said order reads as under:
“WS on behalf of defendant company has not been filed till date, though it was served with summons through the Process Server at its given address on 10.05.2024.
The stipulated period of 30 days for filing WS stands expired long back. Hence, the right of defendant company to file WS stands forfeited.
Since none is responding to calls of the case on behalf of defendant company, it is also being proceeded ex-parte in this case.
List the matter on 16.08.2024 for ex-parte PE.
Affidavit(s) by way of evidence of PWs alongwith list of witnesses be filed by the next date of hearing.”
8. The Respondent/Plaintiff then led its evidence of PW1- Mr. Ankush Sharma, who is the Service Sales Manager and Authorized Representative of the Respondent/Plaintiff. Mr. Ankush Sharma proved various documents including the purchase order, invoices, service orders etc. The statement of PW-1 was recorded on 30th January, 2025.
9. Pursuant to the said evidence which was led by the Respondent/Plaintiff, final arguments were heard and the suit was decreed on 08th August, 2025 in the following terms:
“24. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the plaintiff company is held entitled to recover the above outstanding amount of Rs. 58,35,390/- from defendant company along with simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of present suit till the said amount is realized.
25. Besides above, costs of the suit as well Pleader Fee are also awarded to
