$~6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 28^th January, 2022

+

RSA 42/2020

K.N RAO & ANR.

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. Karan Lahiri, Mr. Prateek Arora

and

Mr.

Vinayak

Mehrotra,

Advocates. (M:9999093362)

versus

M/S COMPOSITE SECURITIES LTD. & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Bharat Malhotra, Advocate for R-

1.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2.

None appears for Respondent Nos.2 & 3/Defendant Nos. 2&3

(hereinafter “Defendant Nos. 2&3”).

3. Vide order dated 14^th July, 2021, notice was issued to the

Respondents in the present second appeal. The ld. Registrar vide order dated

26^th August, 2021, recorded that service of all Respondents was complete.

Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 (hereinafter “Defendant No.1”) was duly

represented by his counsel on the said date. However, there was no

appearance for Defendant Nos. 2&3. It was recorded that Defendant No.2

had been served through courier while Defendant No.3 was served through

courier, email and dasti, which was even received by one Mr. Arun,

Manager of Defendant No.3. Thereafter, since no one was appearing for

Defendant Nos. 2&3, in order to give another opportunity to them to appear,

vide order dated 4^th October, 2021, this Court had directed fresh steps to be

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000346

taken to serve Defendant Nos. 2&3. Defendant No.3 was also directed to be

served through counsel appearing before the Trial Court. On the next date

being 29^th November, 2021, the ld. Registrar recorded that Defendant No.2

was unserved as the premises was found locked, therefore he was directed to

be served fresh notice. It was also recorded that service by e-mail had been

effected upon Defendant No.3 and the Registry was directed to report

whether the same had bounced back or not.

4. It is clear from a perusal of the order sheet that despite service having

been repeatedly effected upon Defendant Nos. 2&3, there is no appearance

on their behalf before this Court. Even before the Trial Court and Appellate

Court, this Court notes that Defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

5.

Insofar as Defendant No.1 is concerned, ld. counsel for the

Appellants/Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) submits that he does not

press for any relief against Defendant No.1.

6. As there is no appearance on behalf of Defendant Nos.2 & 3 despite

service, the Court is proceeding to hear the matter.

7.

The present second appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of the

Appellate Court dated 22^nd October, 2019 in RCA No.61244/2916 titled KN

Rao & Anr. v. Composite Securities Ltd. by which the Trial Court judgment

dated 23^rd December, 2014 in Suit No.567/12 titled Mr KN Rao & Anr. v.

Composite Securities Ltd. & Ors. was upheld. In effect, the suit of the

Plaintiffs for declaration and recovery was dismissed by both the Courts

below. The primary ground for dismissal was that the suit was barred by

limitation, though on merits the Trial Court held in favour of the Plaintiffs.

8. The case of the Plaintiffs in the suit is that both the Plaintiffs are

senior citizens and Plaintiff No.1 – Mr. K.N. Rao – was working in Bank of

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000346

Baroda (hereinafter “Bank”). The Plaintiffs owned certain shares in

different banks, the details of which are as under:

Appellant No.2”

9. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Mr. M.P. Jindal – Defendant No.2

was a colleague of Plaintiff No.1 in the Bank where Plaintiff No.1 was

working. Post retirement of Plaintiff No.1 from the Bank, since the Plaintiffs

had to move to their native town, they handed over/entrusted the

aforementioned shares/securities owned by them, to Defendant No.2, for

dealing with and maintaining the same as per their instructions. M/s. Alankit