Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Misc DJ No. 130/26
Johnson Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Multitex Filtration
Engineers Ltd.
03.07.2026
Present: Sh. Sarthak Miglani Ld. plaintiff/non-applicant
(through VC).
None for defendant.
1 By this order, I shall dispose of application u/o.9 rule
13 CPC filed on behalf of defendant/applicant
seeking setting aside judgment and decree dated
08.08.2025.
2 In the application u/o.9 rule 13 CPC, it is stated that
the defendant/applicant came to know about the suit
in January 2026 only when in the process of
obtaining indemnity bond (surety bond) from
insurance companies, one of the insurance agents,
while doing due diligence about the
applicant/defendant company came across the
existence of the civil suit against the
applicant/defendant company and informed the
same to the applicant/defendant on 14.01.2026.
Thereafter, applicant/defendant company engaged
the counsel who inspected the file and thereafter
-- 1 of 6 --
immediately filed the present application u/o.9 rule
13 CPC. It is prayed that the judgment and decree
dated 08.08.2025 may be set aside.
3 In reply to this application, it is stated that the
application is barred by limitation and is liable to be
dismissed in limine. The defendant/applicant
admitted in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application
that the summons were served upon its own
deployed staff member (one Mr. R. P. Pandey) on
10.05.2024 at 217, Hans Bhawan, New Delhi which
is admittedly the registered address of the
applicant/defendant. It is stated that the AR of
defendant/applicant Sh. Deep Kumar Rajput had
appeared before DLSA on 10.01.2022 in response
to the notices issued by DLSA of Pre-litigation
Mediation Proceedings. So no ground exists for
setting aside ex-parte decree and judgment. It is
prayed that the application u/o.9 rule 13 CPC may
be dismissed.
4 I have gone through the application, its reply
material on record, written submissions filed on
-- 2 of 6 --
behalf of parties and submissions forwarded by Ld.
Counsels for parties.
5 It is the case of the defendant/applicant that the
service was done at a non-functional office of the
defendant and on a person i.e. peon who was not
authorized to take the service.
On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel
for plaintiff/non-applicant that the service is properly
effected at the registered office of defendant and
validly accepted on behalf of defendant.
6 The relevant provision with respect to service of
processes on the corporation is mentioned in order
29 rule 2 CPC which is as follows:-
Service on Corporation
Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process,
where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be
served -
(a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal
officer of the corporation, or
(b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the
corporation at the registered office, or if there is no
registered office then at the place where the corporation
carries on business.
-- 3 of 6 --
Now in the present case, the defendant was served
on 10.05.2024 at 1:15 p.m. through process server.
The report of the process server is as below:-
-- 4 of 6 --
7 So according to this report, the summons were
served on a clerk namely Ravinder Pandey who
was sitting on the reception. He read those
summons and telephoned to his employer/owner
and thereafter accepted those summons.
8 So, from the perusal of the report on summons, they
were served on the Reception of the office of
defendant. Now as per the business practice, the
reception in a office is a place at which the
interaction of the outward people took place, for the
first time, with some authorized person of that
business place. So, it cannot be said that the
summons were just left. Moreover, from the perusal
of report, it appears that before receiving the
summons, that person namely Ravinder Pandey
talked with his employer and thereafter received
those summons. Moreover, as per the report, Sh.
Ravinder Pandey was a clerk and not a mere peon.
9 As per order 29 rule 2 (b) CPC, the summons on a
corporation are to be served on the registered office
address of that corporation. Admittedly, as per
defendant/applicant, the said office was a registered
-- 5 of 6 --
office in the government records. So, the condition
of order 29 rule 2 CPC got satisfied.
10 So, in these circumstances, it appears that the
summons of the original suit was duly served at the
registered address of the defendant on 10.05.2024
and were duly accepted by a person who was
having due authority in this regard.
11 So, the plea taken by the defendant appears to be
false and thus without merits. So, the application
u/o.9 rule 13 CPC is hereby dismissed.
12 This file and the original suit file be consigned to
Record Room.
(Rakesh Pandit)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-13/
Central/Tis Hazari/Delhi/03.07.2026
-- 6 of 6 --