CRP.No.33/2013

Page 1 of 10

$~40

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 15^th February, 2013

+

C.R.P. 33/2013

VIKAS DEDEECH

..... Petitioner

Through :

Mr.Rahul Sharma and Mr.Uzma

Ashraf, Advs.

versus

RICHLOOK GARMENTS (P) LTD.

..... Respondent

Through :

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

%

PRATIBHA RANI, J. (ORAL)

CM. No.2742/2013 (Condonation of Delay in re-filing the petition)

1. In view of the reasons given in the application, the delay in re-

filing the petition is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRP No.33/2013 & CM No.2741/2013 (Stay)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2012 whereby

the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi dismissed the applications of the

petitioner moved under Order IX Rule 7 CPC and under Section 5 of

Limitation Act.

2013:DHC:844

CRP.No.33/2013

Page 2 of 10

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned Trial Court has

passed the impugned order in great haste without looking into the

peculiar circumstances that prevented the petitioner from appearing and

contesting the case. It has been submitted that learned Trial Court, while

dismissing the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, hurriedly

disposed of the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC observing that it

is hopelessly barred by limitation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

not disputing that he was duly served with the summons in Civil Suit

No.348/2010. The ground on which the order has been impugned is that

issue of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC is not

relevant as the limitation is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation

Act, 1963. Further the petitioner was prevented from contesting the suit

due to the illness and death of his parents. His father died on 26.11.2010

and mother died on 01.12.2010. The petitioner remained occupied in

performing last rituals on death of his parents. Subsequently, on

18.04.2012, he engaged another counsel who filed fresh Vakalatnama

and thereafter on 24.07.2012, the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC

was moved alongwith application under Section 5 of Limitation Act,

which have been dismissed vide impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Ramhet & Ors.

Vs. Ajaypal & Ors. 2002 (35) Cicil CC(M.P.) and Prem Nath Monga

Foods & Beverages Pvt. LTd. Vs. Jainco Industries & Ors. 1996 Civil

CC 423 in support of his contention that application under Order IX Rule

7 CPC should be liberally allowed and the good cause should be liberally

construed. Reliance has also been placed be learned counsel for the

2013:DHC:844

CRP.No.33/2013

Page 3 of 10

petitioner on Rajaji vs. R.Krishnaji (2005) 3 MLJ 379, C.L.Cleetus vs.

South Indian Bank Ltd. and Anr. AIR 2007 Ker 301, Palani Nathan vs.

Devanai Ammal (1989) 2 MLJ 259, and Kasturi & Ors. vs. Saravanan

@ Sakthi Saravanan in CRP (PD)(MD) Nos. 1267 & 1268 of 2008

decided on 20.04.2010 in support of the contention that applications

under Order IX Rule 7 CPC are governed by Article 137 of Limitation

Act.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

6. In another report Y.Daniel vs. Annamma in OP(FC) No.10 of

2012 (R) decided on 15.03.2012 (MANU/KE/0205/2012) also, it was

held :

‘It was true that unlike applications under Order IX Rule 13 of

prescribed period of three years’.

7. The apprehension of the petitioner that on the basis of discussion

on the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, his application

under Order IX Rule 7 CPC has also been disposed of in haste, is not

well founded. Learned Trial C