Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 15 CS DJ 191/23 PRARTHANA @ AASTHA
Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA
24.08.2026
Present : Ms. Meenakshi Gupta, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Mr. Narender Bhandari, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2,
through VC.
Mr. Hari Shankar, Proxy Counsel for defendant no. 3.
Fresh vakalatnama on behalf of plaintiff is filed and it is stated that no
reply to the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is to be filed and same shall be
contested by addressing oral arguments.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Defendant no. 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte vide order dated
30.09.2024. Absence of defendant no. 1 and 2 is submitted on the ground that AR of
defendant no. 1 had expired on 24.09.2024, so defendant no. 1 and 2 and their
counsel could not keep track of the matter. Plaintiff opposes the application
submitting that the application is beyond the period of 30 days. This objection is not
sustainable in law as application for setting aside of order can be filed till next date.
It implies that the present application could be filed by or on 20.01.2025 but the
application in hand was filed on 18.01.2025, so the same is well within the period of
limitation. Further, sufficient cause for absence is made out. So the application
under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is allowed and exparte order dated 30.09.2024 is set
aside.
Reply to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is also filed by
plaintiff.
Put up for arguments on application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
on 15.02.2027.
(Aanchal)
District Judge-03, Rohini Courts
North District, Delhi
24.08.2026 (jy)
-- 1 of 1 --