Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 4
CS 4332/24
CNR No.: DLND010100362024
MANAV TANWAR Vs. NARESH GIRI
23.09.2026
Present: Ms. Kamal Sant, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff.
Sh. Mohan Singh, Ld. Counsel for Defendant.
PW2 Sh. Shankar Singh from Office of Sub-
Registrar, Delhi Cantt. In person.
Arguments on pending application under Order IX
Rule 7 CPC heard.
It is forcefully argued on behalf of the applicant/
defendant that he had no knowledge of the pendency of the
present proceedings and therefore he could not enter appearance
before the Court within the stipulated period. It is submitted that
wife of the applicant/ defendant was ill and thus the applicant/
defendant was not even in Delhi. It is submitted that in these
compelling circumstances, the applicant/ defendant could not
join the proceedings.
Counsel for the defendant submits that he has
nothing more to say as all his contentions have been duly
recorded and correctly paraphrased here as above.
Perusal of the record reveals that on 28.04.2025
when process server visited the defendant at his address bearing
no. WZ-346-B, Naraina Village, he refused to accept the
summons. It is not disputed that the address of defendant has
been correctly mentioned by the process server in his report. The
process server has described in detail even the particulars of the
-1-
-- 1 of 3 --
premises and has even mentioned that there was an electricity
meter bearing CA no. 60030877793 installed at the premises of
the defendant. Even the affidavit accompanying the application
mentions the same address. Therefore, I have absolutely no
reasons to doubt the veracity of the report of process server.
Interestingly, in the application, the applicant/ defendant claims
that he came to know about the instant suit through relatives/
neighbours/ family members. In a case where the family
members, neighbors and relatives were not even served with the
summons in the instant suit, are well aware of the instant
proceedings, whereas a person who has refused to accept the
summons feigns ignorance about the pendency of the instant
proceedings. It is inexplicable on record as to how come the
family members, neighbours and relatives assumed knowledge
about the pendency of the instant suit. Evidently, the story
presented before the Court about gaining knowledge is specious
and endorses the version of the process server. It appears that
defendant was well conscious of the pending proceedings and he
kept a watch over the proceedings. Such mischievous practices
cannot be entertained by a Court of law.
The application at hand is clearly an effort to
hoodwink the Court and set to naught the proceedings hitherto
conducted. I do not find any merits in the application under
Order IX Rule 7 CPC and same is dismissed.
The defendant has also placed on record written
statement alongwith application under Section 151 CPC seeking
condonation of delay in filing the same. The statutory time limit
-2-
-- 2 of 3 --
to file written statement has already elapsed and written
statement at this belated juncture cannot be taken on record on
such mischievous and mendacious pleas. Written statement is
accordingly taken off the record.
However, defendant is permitted to join the
proceedings henceforth but that would not empower the
defendant to set the clock back to naught.
PW2 is examined, cross-examined and discharged.
Diet money of Rs.700/- paid to the witness.
Put up for remaining PE on 20.01.2027.
(Dharmender Rana)
District Judge – 01
PHC/New Delhi/23.09.2026
-3-
-- 3 of 3 --