Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 28
CS (COMM.) 331/25
AJAY KUMAR JAIN PARTNER M/S SHREE SHANTINATH
METAL Vs. KIRTI PAL MADAN PROPRIETOR OF M/S
MADAN ALUIMINIUM UDYOG
17.03.2026
Present: Sh.Jasdeep Singh, ld. counsel for plaintiff with
witness Sh.Rohit Jain
Sh.Sarthak Chugh, ld. counsel for defendants
(through VC).
Matter is listed for recording of uncontested PE from
plaintiff as the defence of the defendant was struck off by order
dated 25.11.2025 of ld. Predecessor of this court. In the
meantime now an application u/s 151 CPC has been moved,
seeking for recalling of order dated 25.11.2025.
It appears from the perusal of the record that ld.
Predecessor of this court taking note of the fact that service upon
defendants was effected on 19.07.2025, in pursuance thereto
defendants put appearance and a vakalatnama of counsel was
also filed on behalf of defendants. However despite passage of
131 days WS was not filed, therefore defence was struck off by
order dated 25.11.2025.
Now the present application has been moved which is
patently not maintainable under the provisions of Section 151
CPC, however the taking the application on the face of it, it is
stated in the application that defendants were served by
WhatsApp on 19.07.2025, however only summons were served
with only four pages but copy of plaint and documents were not
supplied with those summons. It is stated that since order V Rule
2 CPC mandates that summons must be accompanied with
-- 1 of 2 --
complete copy of plaint and documents, which was not provided
to defendants for enabling them to file the WS. It is for that
reason WS could not be filed. Hence it is stated that order dated
25.11.2025 may be recalled.
Application has been moved by ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff.
Having considered the submissions, at the outset it be
noted that when service of summons by WhatsApp is not
disputed, if at all the plea of the defendants was that complete
copy of plaint and documents were not supplied, defendants
could have moved the application in the court seeking for supply
of deficient documents, particularly when counsel for defendants
had appeared. It is also appropriate to note that in between a
hand written application was moved by defendants wherein some
more time was sought after passage of 124 days for filing the
WS. Even in that application it was not mentioned anywhere that
complete copy of plaint or documents were not supplied. It
appears that now at this belated stage the present application with
the ground as mentioned above is an after thought. Hence the
application stands declined.
Affidavit of the witness Rohit Jain has been filed. Copy of
the order is ordered to be supplied to ld. Counsel for defendant
for cross-examination on legal issues. Put up for recording of his
evidence on 12.05.2026.
(Shailender Malik )
District Judge (Commercial)-02
North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/17.03.2026
-- 2 of 2 --