Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 14 Misc DJ/1317/2025
CNR No. DLNW010104772025
MAHENDER PAL Vs. DEVANAND SHARMA
09.10.2026
Present: Ms. Divya Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for Applicant/Defendant.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar, ld. counsel for the Non
Applicant/Plaintiff through VC.
1. Arguments on the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC filed
on behalf of the applicant/JD for setting aside the order dated 15.04.2025
whereby the ld. Predecessor of this Court dismissed the application of
JD/defendant under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC for setting the order dated
24.05.2023 whereby suit of the plaintiff filed under Order 37 CPC was
decreed and leave to defend applicaton of defendant was dismissed being
time barrred.
2. It is stated in the present application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC
that daughter in law of the applicant/defendant died on 12.02.2025 due to
which family members of the applicant/defendant was in shock and traume
for the past several months. It is stated that on 15.04.2025, the
applicant/defendant could not appear physically before the Court but he
had joined the VC but due to lack of knowledge of technology, the
applicant was unable to understand the process of proceedings of this
Court. It is stated that counsel for applicant/defendant assured the applicant
that he will update him proceedings of the case but despite contacting by
applicant to counsel, no information of case proceedings was told to the
applicant/defendant. Thereafter, applicant filed application under Section
114 CPC for review of order dated 15.04.2025 but same was dismissed,
against which the applicant/defendant filed CM(M) before the Hon’ble
-- 1 of 3 --
: 2 :
High Court of Delhi which was also dismissed vide order dated
26.08.2025. It is stated that absnece on the part of the applicant/defendant
on 26.08.2025 was neither willful nor intentional but due to the above said
reasons and circumstances.
3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the non applicant/plaintiff
wherein it is stated that the present application is barred by gross laches as
the application undder Order 37 Rule 4 CPC was dismissed on 15.04.2025
and present restoration application has been filed after more than 5 months
without any separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is
prayed that the present application be dismissed with costs.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of record reflects that the present application under
Order 9 Rule 9 CPC has been filed on 04.10.2025 after a lapse of about six
months from the date of order dated 15.04.2025 whereby the ld.
Predecessor of this Court dismissed the application of JD/defendant under
Order 37 Rule 4 CPC. No application seeking condonation of delay has
been filed along with the present application. The applicant/defendant has
already exhausted his remedy up to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by
filing CM(Main) against the order dated 15.04.2025 which was dismissed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 26.08.2025. Since
no application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the
present application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, this Court is of the opinion
that application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC is not maintainable being time
barred and same is accordingly dismissed. Copy of order be given dasti to
all concerned.
-- 2 of 3 --
: 3 :
6. The record of this miscellaneous file be tagged with the Misc.
Execution File No.729/2023. Copy of order be given dasti to all concerned.
(Anuj Kumar Singh)
DJ-04/NW/Rohini Courts/Delhi
09.10.2026
-- 3 of 3 --