Yogesh Tomar vs. Rx Infotech PVT LTD

Facts

The appellant, Yogesh Tomar, sought to appeal an ex-parte final judgment and decree dated July 18, 2023, passed by the Commercial Court in CS(COMM) 206/2021, RX Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Yogesh Tomar. The decree was for ₹3,68,044/- with interest and costs. The appellant claimed he was unaware of the suit and summons, only learning of the decree in August 2023. He filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree, which was dismissed on May 2, 2024. The appellant contended he was not informed of this dismissal by his counsel and only became aware when his account was attached. The Commercial Court had previously rejected the appellant's claim of non-receipt of summons, finding they were sent to the correct address, which was consistent with invoices and GST registration, and also electronically.

Held

The Court dismissed the appellant's application for condonation of delay. The Court found no credible explanation for the 599-day delay in filing the appeal after the dismissal of the appellant's application under Order IX Rule 13 on May 2, 2024. The appellant's contention that he was unaware of the dismissal because his counsel did not inform him was deemed unpersuasive. The Court noted that the Commercial Court had already examined the appellant's claim of not receiving summons and rejected it, finding that summons were sent to the correct address, as evidenced by invoices and the appellant's GST registration, and also electronically. Consequently, as the delay condonation application was dismissed, the appeal itself was also dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot rely on their counsel's alleged failure to inform them of an adverse order as a sufficient ground to condone a substantial delay, especially when the underlying order was based on findings of proper service.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant has provided sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 599 days in filing the present appeal, as required under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly concerning the dismissal of his application under Order IX Rule 13. Petitioner's arguments: The appellant argued that he was unaware of the suit and the ex-parte decree, and subsequently, unaware of the dismissal of his application to set aside the decree, as his counsel failed to inform him. He claims to have only discovered the decree and the dismissal order upon attachment of his bank account. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (RX Infotech Pvt. Ltd.) in response to the delay condonation application or the appeal. The Commercial Court's findings, as noted by the High Court, indicate that summons were duly served at the correct address and electronically, and the appellant's contention of non-receipt was rejected.