Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 3
CS SCJ 976/24
SHRI KRISHNA DAIRY MILK AND FOOD Vs. SHRI GOVERDHAN
TRADERS
20.08.2026
Present: None for the plaintiff.
Record shows that since last two dates of hearing, no steps have been taken
by the plaintiff for issuance of summons upon the defendant.
Be awaited for 12:00PM.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
20.08.2026
At 12:00PM.
Present : Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of plaintiff. Same be checked and taken
on record. Again a request for adjournment is made on the behalf of the plaintiff on the
ground that Ld Counsel for plaintiff has been recently engaged and it was the previous
counsel who has not taken steps, however, no complaint against the previous counsel has
been made by him or his client. No reasons for absence of the plaintiff or non-
compliance of the last order have been apprised.
Considering the conduct of the plaintiff, request for adjournment is hereby
rejected.
Put up for appropriate orders at 04:00PM.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
20.08.2026
-- 1 of 3 --
At 04:08 PM
Present : None for the plaintiff.
As per report of the Ahlmad, steps have not been taken by the plaintiff for
issuance of summons upon the defendant since last three dates.
It is quite apparent that the plaintiff is not serious in pursuing the present
suit and record speaks volume about the careless conduct of the plaintiff.
Vide last order dated 15.04.2026, plaintiff was given an opportunity to comply
with the order dated 07.08.2025 pertaining to service of summons upon the defendant,
within a week. However, plaintiff has not complied with the directions contained in the
order dated 07.08.2025, 22.12.2025 and 15.04.2026, all pertaining to service of
summons upon the defendant by filing the appropriate process fee.
Perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff has remained extremely casual
and negligent in pursuing the present suit and despite grant of various opportunities, no
improvement in the conduct of the plaintiff was noticed.
Record also shows that matter is pending for service upon the defendant
since September, 2024 and the plaintiff has been extremely negligent and casual in
pursuing the present case. Further, several orders reflect that plaintiff was directed to
take steps in terms of previous order and be diligent and yet the plaintiff has failed to
pursue the case properly.
Considering the conduct, court is not inclined to grant another adjournment
to the plaintiff as sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the plaintiff. Vide
order dated 15.04.2026, plaintiff was granted one last opportunity to take steps for
issuance of summons and yet the plaintiff has failed to comply.
Order VII Rule 9 of CPC
inter alia provides that plaintiff shall deposit the
requisite fees for service of summons upon defendant within seven days from the date
when the summons were directed to be issued upon the defendant. Vide order dated
04.09.2024, summons were firstly issued upon the defendant whereby the summons
-- 2 of 3 --
were received back with report of address left. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.08.2025,
22.12.2025 and 15.04.2026 , plaintiff was again and again directed to take steps for
service of summons upon the defendant and he was specifically directed to verify the
address of the defendant. As all such orders pertain to issuance of summons upon the
defendant and yet none of such orders have been complied by the plaintiff admittedly as
no process fee was filed on all such occasions. Rule 11(f) of Order VII of CPC
inter alia
provides that where the plaintiff fails to comply with provisions of Order VII Rule 9 of
CPC, the plaint shall be rejected.
Accordingly, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Order VII
Rule 11(f) of CPC is clearly invoked in the present case and the plaint is hereby rejected.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
20.08.2026
-- 3 of 3 --