Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 19
Civ Suit 535/24
INDU SHARMA Vs. MOHD KAMIL
22.07.2025
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kasana, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant in person with Ld. Counsel Sh. Dilshad Ali.
An application u/s 151 CPC filed on behalf of the
defendant. Same is taken on record. Copy supplied.
Arguments on application u/O 9 Rule 7 CPC already
heard.
This order disposes of the application filed by the
defendant under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking recall of the ex parte
order dated 26.03.2025, whereby he was proceeded ex parte due to his
absence. Summons was shown to have been deemed served upon the
defendant and he through counsel, appeared before the Court on
29.01.2025. However, he remained absent and on 26.03.2025 he was
proceeded ex parte. The ex parte evidence of the plaintiff was
recorded on 16.04.2025, and the matter was fixed for orders on
28.04.2025. On the said date, the defendant appeared, and thereafter
filed the present application on 15.05.2025.
In support of the application, the defendant claimed that
he is illiterate and unaware of the court proceedings. He alleged that
the process server had forged his signatures to falsely show effected
service of summons. However, no affidavit, complaint, or
documentary evidence has been filed to substantiate this allegation.
Further, since the defendant had already appeared on 29.01.2025, his
claim of ignorance of proceedings is rendered doubtful. The Court
finds that the defendant has failed to put forth any legally tenable or
supported explanation for his absence on 26.03.2025. His conduct
-- 1 of 2 --
reflects a clear lack of diligence and avoidable delay in participating in
the trial proceedings.
The plaintiff has opposed the application on the ground
that it is a delaying tactic and lacks merit. While there is substance in
the plaintiff's objection, it is equally well settled that procedures are
handmaids of justice, and denial of hearing should be exercised with
caution. The Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480,
and Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, (2005) 1 SCC 787, has
emphasized the need for a liberal and justice-oriented approach in
procedural matters, particularly where no final judgment has been
pronounced.
Though the defendant has not demonstrated sufficient
cause in legal terms, and the Court is not satisfied with the credibility
of his explanation, considering that the judgment had not been passed
and that rights of the parties would be better served by a decision on
merits, the Court deems it appropriate to allow the defendant one
opportunity to contest the suit.
Accordingly, the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC
is allowed, and the ex parte order dated 26.03.2025 is set aside. The
defendant is given one last opportunity to file his written statement
within 15 days from today. However, given the defendant’s conduct
and the avoidable delay caused in the adjudication of the matter, he is
directed to pay costs of 5,000/-	₹ to the plaintiff before the next date of
hearing.
Put up for filing WS on 08.08.2025.
Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/22.07.2025
-- 2 of 2 --