Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th July, 2025
RAJ KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rahul, Mr. Rahul Kumar and Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Advs.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant challenges dismissal of his application moved under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’].
2. This Court has gone through the impugned order dated 13.02.2025.
3. The learned Trial Court, while taking up the abovesaid application, in order to ensure that there is no prejudice to the applicant (appellant herein), framed issues even and permitted him to lead evidence. The applicant examined four witnesses in order to substantiate his assertions made in the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
4. The abovesaid application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the point of limitation as well as on merits.
5. The impugned order would clearly indicate that the applicant had examined four witnesses and if the applicant was having any reservation or grievance with respect to the alleged service of summons upon him, it is really intriguing to comprehend as to what stopped him from calling the concerned Process Server or, for that matter, the concerned Postman as his witness.
6. No steps, in this regard, seems to have been taken by the applicant, as is evident from Paragraph 12 of the impugned order, which reads as under:
7. In view of the above, there cannot be said to be any illegality or perversity in the impugned order as the best evidence has been held back by the appellant himself.
8. When asked, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was for possession and the plaintiff was seeking his ejectment. He, however, submits that though the appellant herein was earlier occupying the suit premises as a tenant but thereafter, there was an agreement to sell between the parties and the appellant herein had purchased the property from such landlord. However, when asked, it was further apprised that, so far, the appellant had not filed any suit seeking specific performance.
9. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order as the findings have been given after giving due opportunity of adducing evidence to the applicant and the appellant herein himself is to be blamed as he did not even care to examine the concerned Process Server, on whose report he was, eventually, proceeded against ex parte.
10. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
11. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
JUDGE JULY 16, 2025/gunn/SS