M/S Romy Water Care Through Its Proprietor Mr. Prahlad vs. Dharmendra Singh

2026

The Defendant/Appellant vide M-STJ 38/20 (before the learned ASCJ) filed an Application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, to challenge the ex parte Decree dated 03.08.2019, it was claimed that he had never been served with the summons and sought setting aside of the ex parte Judgment.

However, the learned JSCC vide the judgment dated 15.03.2024, held that there were no circumstances proven to establish that the Defendant had not been served. Consequently, the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed vide Order dated 15.03.2024. 12. The Defendant thereafter filed RCA DJ 23/24 to comprehensively challenge the Order dated 15.03.2024 dismissing the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and against Order dated 03.08.2019 whereby the Suit of the Respondent was decreed ex parte.

The learned District Judge considered the contentions raised under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and held that the summons had been sent to the address of the Defendant, which had not been disputed. Though, the service had been affected through the wife, but the Appellant claimed that the signatures of his wife had been forged. However, there was no cogent evidence in this regard, nor any complaint filed in regard to the alleged forgery.

It was also noted that, though initially the Suit was filed under Order XXXVII, and on the non-appearance of the Appellant, despite due service, he was proceeded ex parte on 27.04.2019, instead of passing a decree straight under Order XXXVII CPC. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2026 at 16:39:30

In fact, the Suit was converted to an Ordinary Suit and the evidence of the Plaintiff was recorded, before passing the ex parte decree.

The Defendant never appeared nor contested the Judgment dated 03.08.2019. It was thus, held that the Appellant had failed to show that he had not been served with the summons. The Appeal against the Order dated 15.03.2024, the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, as well as the ex parte Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2019, were dismissed.

The Second Regular Appeal has been preferred against Order dated 02.04.2026 of the learned District Judge.

The grounds of challenge are that the impugned ex parte Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2019 as well as dismissal of the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by Order dated 15.03.2024, which has been upheld in the Appeal vide Order dated 02.04.2026, has caused serious prejudice to the Appellant.

Both the Judgments are a result of bias and are liable to be set aside and quashed. The learned ASCJ was erroneous in law, as the Suit was neither maintainable, in law or in fact, the judgment was perverse, arbitrary and unjust. It was based on conjectures and surmises and is in violation of principles of natural justice. The Suit had been filed under Order XXXVII CPC, even though the Suit was not maintainable Order XXXVII CPC.

The learned Trial Court did not consider the relevant facts at the time of registration of the Suit and directing Notice of the Suit to the Defendant, under Order XXXVII CPC. The summons issued, were not in consonance with the Form, on which the summons had to be issued.

The learned Trial Court had directed vide Order dated 28.01.2019, for the service of the Defendant by all available modes with further direction to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2026 at 16:39:30

The summons were mandatorily required to be annexed with the Plaint and Annexures. Moreover, the Process Server gave a false report that the copy of the Plaint was annexed along with the summons. The service has not been affected in terms of Rule 9(3) CPC. Moreover, the Rule of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, speaks of the service of the summons or Notice on the party or person either personally or through Advocate.

The learned Trial Court has directed summons to be sent by way of ordinary way and also dasti summons were issued. The intention behind this route is to avoid the possibility of manipulation of the summons by the litigant while serving. The summons Rule 7 also provides that the Process Serving officer shall serve the processes entrusted to him, after due enquiry as to the identity of the person. Rule 8 states that if a serving person is not personally acquainted with the person to be served, he shall wherever possible obtain on the original process, endorsement by signature, thumb impression of a respectable person of the locality, identify such person. Rule 10 further provides that the Process Server shall file his Report along with his affirmations on oath, in regard to the service.

In the present case, the Process Server had given a Report that the summons were delivered to Smt. Manju on 26.02.2019. However, the Plaintiff or the Process Server or the Advocate of the Plaintiff, had never This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2026 at 16:39:30

The learned Trial Court, therefore, erroneously proceeded ex parte against the Appellant on 27.04.2019. It is submitted that the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC wherein all these facts have been agitated, have not been considered, while dismissing the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC vide Order dated 15.03.2024. 26. It is further submitted that the ex parte Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2019 is bad in law as the Summary Suit has been treated as ordinary Suit. It has been decreed on the false evidence. The Plaintiff had relied on invoice dated 06.06.2017 Mark C, which had not been proved in accordance with law. The Books of Account maintained in the ordinary course of business, had also not been produced. The learned Trial Court had wrongly considered the document, as Bill of Exchange.

Furthermore, the hand-written Note dated 31.08.2018 Ex.PW1/2 is a photocopy and does not bear the signatures of Appellant. Moreover, it is not covered under Order XXXVII CPC.

It was claimed that the cause of action arose on 10.12.2018. The payment time was till 25.04.2019, while the Suit was filed on 11.01.2019, which was premature. The Written Agreement dated 04.09.2018 Ex.PW1/3 is also a forged document. The Agreement is contrary to the hand-written Agreement Ex.PW1/2. Furthermore, by virtue of Agreement Ex.PW1/3, the earlier hand-written Agreement Ex.PW1/2 was cancelled, of which no This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2026 at 16:39:30

The learned Trial Court has relied upon Notice dated 10.12.2018 Mark D, which does not have the signatures of Mr. Kapil Verma. The address mentioned on the Aadhaar Card and the Notice are different. Furthermore, no tracking Report has been filed and the Notice could not have been read in evidence. The return of envelope Ex.PW1/1 has been produced, but no postal authority has been summoned and none of the documents have been proved in accordance with law.

The Suit was treated as Ordinary Suit and as such, the Court could not have presumed that the contents of the Plaint, were admitted. The ex parte Order and the Judgment are abuse of the process of law. No opportunity has been given to the Appellant, to contest the Suit.

Therefore, the Impugned Judgment dated 15.03.2024 upholding the dismissal of the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, as well as upholding the Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2019 by learned ASJ vide Judgment dated 02.04.2026, are liable to be set aside. Submissions heard and record perused.

At the outset, it may be noted that the Appeal is not maintainable against the Order of dismissal under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and also the Order dated 02.04.2026 of the learned District Judge dismissing the Appeal under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

Be as it may, there is no substantial question of law, that has been raised, in respect of dismissal of the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Moreover, it cannot be the subject matter of Regular Second Appeal. Therefore, it is held that there is no merit in the challenge to the Order of dismissal of the Appeal against the Order dated 15.03.2024 dismissing the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2026 at 16:39:30

Insofar as the ex parte Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2019 is concerned, it is essentially a Second Appeal wherein unless the substantial question of law is raised, this Court cannot re-appreciate the merits of the case.

The Appellant had been shown to be duly served, who failed to appear and had been proceeded ex parte on 27.04.2019. The Plaintiff/Respondent in his ex parte evidence, had deposed that the goods of Rs.2,00,065/-including GST, had been supplied to the Defendant on 06.06.2017, against which no payment was made.

The Defendant had given a handwritten Settlement dated 31.08.2018 Ex.DW1/2, wherein the Appellant had undertaken to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000 in 10 equal installments. The Plaintiff had deposed that no money was paid, to which there is no challenge.

This handwritten settlement was thereafter, reduced to a written, typed and notarized Agreement dated 04.09.2018, wherein it was recorded that the dispute had been settled on 31.08.2018, on the conditions that the Appellant would pay Rs.1,50,000/- in 10 equal EMIs of Rs.15,000/- commencing from 25.09.2018. 38. It was also agreed that in case of late or delayed payment, the Agreement would be cancelled, and the amount as pending would be payable along with interest @ 24% p.a.

The Agreement dated 04.09.2018 Ex.PW-1/3, had been duly proved by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant being ex parte, has not controverted either the handwritten Agreement dated 31.08.2018 Ex.PW1/2, or the typed written Agreement dated 04.09.2018 Ex.PW1/3. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2026 at 16:39:30

As per the typed Agreement, it had been agreed by the parties that in case the installments were not paid, the Plaintiff would be entitled to the original amount along with interest @ 24% p.a.

The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, therefore, rightly decreed the Suit for the principal amount since the Settlement inter se the parties, was never complied.

The unrebutted and uncorroborated testimony of the Plaintiff had proved its case and the Suit was rightly decreed. The Appellant has not been able to agitate any substantial question of law.

There is no merit in the present Second Appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Pending Application also stands disposed of.