Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-12,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Misc DJ 124/2026
In the matter of:
Union Bank of India ….. Applicant/Plaintiff
Versus
Shailendra Verma & Anr. .… Non-Applicants/Defendants
ORDER
Dated: 16.07.2026
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application under Order IX
Rule 9 r/w section 151 CPC, seeking restoration of the suit as filed on
behalf of Plaintiff.
2. It is stated that vide order dated 05.02.2026, the suit bearing no.
CS (COMM) 862/2021 was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution. It
is submitted that vide order dated 05.02.2026, while dismissing the suit, it
was mentioned in the order that no one was present for the plaintiff bank. It
is contended that however both the counsel as well as the manager of the
bank were present outside the court room. It is further contended that the
counsel for plaintiff was standing just outside the door of the courtroom
waiting for the cases to be called up, as the court was scheduled to sit at
10.30 AM as informed by the reader of the court. However, at 10:30 A.M,
suddenly the staff of the court opened the door and called item no. 2,
Misc DJ 124/2026 Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
thereupon, when counsel of the plaintiff rushed inside the courtroom and on
inquiry, the reader of the court informed that the suit had been disposed of
for non-appearance. Applicant/plaintiff also contended that both the counsel
for the plaintiff as well the manager of the bank were present in the court
and due to some miscommunication, the matter was dismissed for non-
prosecution. It is also contended that there has been no instance even at any
past date of court hearing where the presence of either any bank official or
counsel was not there when required. It is submitted that the plaintiff will
suffer irreparable loss if the order dated 05.02.2026 is not set aside and the
suit is not restored. Thus, the applicant/plaintiff prayed that the suit may be
restored.
3. Non-applicants/defendants have filed the reply to the above
application contending therein that the Plaintiff has failed to disclose any
"sufficient cause" for non-appearance as contemplated under the provisions
of Order IX Rule 9 CPC for seeking restoration of the suit and the
application is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. It is also contended
that the present application has been filed in a routine and mechanical
manner without furnishing any cogent, plausible or bona fide explanation
for the wilful non-appearance and non-prosecution on the part of the
Plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff is a nationalized bank possessing adequate
legal machinery, panel advocates, officers and administrative infrastructure
and therefore cannot be permitted to take vague and evasive pleas of
inadvertence, administrative lapse or communication gap. It is contended
that the Ld. Court while presiding over the original suit was pleased to
direct the counsel for the plaintiff vide order dated 19.01.2026 for
" the
appearance of Legal Head of Plaintiff bank (who is responsible to pass and
Misc DJ 124/2026 Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
authorise Advocates appearing for Bank) before the matter is taken up
further”. However, instead of complying with the said order, the counsel
for the plaintiff chose not to appear either personally or through any
representative of the said bank. Non-applicants/defendants contended that
the conduct of the Plaintiff throughout the proceedings has remained
negligent, careless and the dismissal of the suit was a direct consequence of
its own deliberate inaction and lack of diligence.It is further contended that
the counsel for plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands and
with suppression of material facts pertaining to its negligent conduct and
defaults before the court. It is also submitted that restoration of a suit
dismissed in default is not a matter of right and the Applicant must establish
bona fide reasons coupled with sufficient cause, which is completely absent
in the present case. It is further contended that the present application is an
abuse of the process of law and has been filed only with the intention to
prolong litigation and harass the defendants unnecessarily. It is further
submitted that plaintiff has failed to file any supporting material or
documentary proof substantiating the grounds urged in the application and
the same is therefore liable to be dismissed. Reply on merits also non-
applicants/defendants denied the contention of the applicant/plaintiff.Thus,
the non-applicants/defendants prayed that the present application may be
dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Arguments heard.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submitted that the
counsel for the applicant/plaintiff was very much present outside the court
room on 05.02.2026, however, the case was not called but at 10:30 am,
when counsel inquired about the case, then it was informed to the counsel
Misc DJ 124/2026 Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
for the applicant/plaintiff that the matter has been dismissed in default as
well as non-prosecution. It is also argued that on 05.02.2026, the counsel
for the applicant/plaintiff was also unwell as she was suffering from high
fever. It is further submitted that counsel for the plaintiff was appearing in
this matter almost on each and every date. Ld. Counsel for the
applicant/plaintiff submitted that the present application may be allowed
and main suit may be restored.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the non-applicant/defendant
submitted that the applicant/plaintiff has not shown any sufficient cause for
non-appearance of plaintiff on 05.02.2026 and therefore, the reasons
mentioned by the applicant/plaintiff in the application for non-appearance
of applicant/plaintiff are not plausible reasons. He further submitted that the
instant application deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have considered the above submissions of Ld. Counsel for the
parties and perused the file.
8. Perusal of file shows that on 05.02.2026, none appeared for the
plaintiff in the suit bearing CS (COMM) 862/2021. Further, vide order
dated 05.02.2026, Ld. Predecessor Court also observed that “ by order dated
19.01.2026, the court while observing the brazen conduct of counsel Ms
Aditi Chopra, empanelled as panel lawyer with the plaintiff bank and
representing the bank, had called for the appearance of legal head of the
plaintiff bank.” However, on 05.02.2026, no one was present for the
plaintiff bank. Therefore, in these circumstances, vide order dated
05.02.2026,the suit was dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution.
9. Perusal of file further shows that vide order dated 19.01.2026,
further cross-examination of PW-1 was deferred due to the conduct of the
Misc DJ 124/2026 Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
counsel for the applicant/plaintiff. Thus, on 19.01.2026, court directed the
plaintiff for appearance of legal head of plaintiff bank for 05.02.2026.
However, on 05.02.2026 neither the legal head nor the counsel for the
plaintiff bank appeared. As such, the plaintiff bank has not complied the
directions of court as given on 19.01.2026. Therefore, the suit was
dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution on 05.02.2026. After
that plaintiff has filed the instant application on 11.02.2026, well within the
prescribed period. Further perusal of main file also reveals that the counsel
for the plaintiff or AR of the plaintiff were regularly appearing in the matter
except few dates. Though in the instant application, it is contended that on
05.02.2026 counsel was present outside the court and case was not called
and when at 10:30 am, counsel rushed inside the court and inquired from
the reader of the court then, counsel was informed that matter has been
disposed of for non-appearance. But such contentions of the
applicant/plaintiff does not inspire confidence, as in the instant application,
it is also mentioned that such order was made on 05.02.2026 due to some
miscommunication. However, considering the overall facts and
circumstance of the present case, this court is of the view that suit was at the
stage of evidence, when the same was dismissed in default as well as for
non-prosecution and therefore, it would be appropriate to meet the ends of
justice, if the same is decided on merits.
10. Therefore, considering all the above discussions, the instant
application deserves to be allowed but subject to costs and accordingly, the
application is allowed subject to costs of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited by
applicant/plaintiff in DLSA, Central, THC, Delhi. Accordingly, the suit
Misc DJ 124/2026 Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
bearing no. CS (COMM) 862/2021 be restored to its original number and
position. Copy of this order be also placed in the main case file.
11. Application is accordingly disposed of.
(LAL SINGH)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-12
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts /Delhi
16.07.2026
Misc DJ 124/2026 Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --