Ashwani Gupta v. Tala Ram Kamboj & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 05 May 2026 · 2026:DHC:3829
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
CM(M) 933/2023
2026:DHC:3829
civil appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The High Court restored an appeal dismissed in default for non-prosecution due to inability to serve a necessary party, granting the petitioner another opportunity for substituted service to ensure justice.

Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 933/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 05th May, 2026
CM(M) 933/2023 & CM APPL. 29710/2023
ASHWANI GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Nayyar, Adv.
VERSUS
TALA RAM KAMBOJ & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER (Oral)
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.
JUDGMENT

1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1949, assailing the order dated 13th January, 2023 passed by the learned Appellate Court in RCA DJ No. 37/20, whereby the appeal qua respondent no. 1 has been dismissed in default for non-prosecution.

3. No one has appeared on behalf of respondents.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. The impugned order dated 13th January, 2023 reads as under: “No steps in terms of previous order have been taken by the appellant for prosecution of the present appeal qua respondent no. 1. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the steps could not be taken as the appellant is not aware about the death of respondent no.1 nor is he aware about the whereabouts/details of CM(M) 933/2023 his LRs if he has already expired. Time sought on behalf of the appellant to take steps for substituted service of respondent no.1, however, looking into previous conduct of the appellant, I am not inclined to grant any further time for the aforesaid purpose. The present appeal qua respondent no. 1 is accordingly dismissed in default for non-prosecution….”

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the court has passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts of the case as the respondent No. 1 is the necessary party in the appeal. The service of respondent No. 1 is necessary for the proper adjudication of the appeal and to avoid miscarriage of justice.

7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, it would be in the interest of justice, if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for the service of respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the appeal qua respondent no. 1 is restored and one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for service of respondent No. 1. The petition is disposed of in the above said terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J MAY 05, 2026/sds/tp