M S Taruna Textiles vs Welcome Saree Creation Pvt. Ltd

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010821172024
+ RFA (COMM) 498/2024
M S TARUNA TEXTILES ….Appellant
Through: Mr. Tushar Kaushik and Mr.
Arpit Sharma, Advs.
versus
WELCOME SAREE CREATION PVT. LTD
.....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHARAT PARASHAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
CM APPL. 70567/2026 [For condonation of delay in filing CM
APPL. 70566/2026] and CM APPL. 70566/2026 [For restoration of
Appeal]
1. The present proceedings arise out of RFA (COMM) 498/2024,
preferred by the Appellant, M/s Taruna Textiles, through its
proprietor, Ms. Taruna Goyal, assailing the judgment and decree dated
22.07.2024 passed by the learned District Judge in CS (COMM)
855/2021, whereby the suit instituted by the Respondent for recovery
of Rs.25,91,892/- was decreed, along with costs and pendente lite and
future interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
2. The Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court
vide order dated 08.01.2026. The Appellant has now preferred CM
APPL. 70566/2026 under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, ‘CPC’), seeking
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:47:19
RFA(COMM) 498/2024 Page 1 of 8

restoration of the Appeal. The Appellant has also filed CM APPL.
70567/2026 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with
Section 151 CPC, seeking condonation of delay in filing the
application for restoration.
3. The question requiring consideration is whether the Appellant
has satisfactorily explained the delay in seeking restoration and
established sufficient cause for its non-appearance when the Appeal
was taken up for hearing on 08.01.2026.
BACKGROUND
4. The record reflects that notice was issued in the Appeal on
21.11.2024. By the same order, this Court stayed the operation of the
impugned judgment and decree, subject to the Appellant depositing
the decretal amount, together with up-to-date interest, with the
Registrar General of this Court within the stipulated period of three
months. According to the Appellant, the said direction was duly
complied with.
5. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 08.09.2025 and adjourned
to 08.01.2026, as it could not be taken up for hearing owing to paucity
of Court time.
6. On 08.01.2026, the Appeal was taken up for hearing. The
Appellant was not represented, notwithstanding that the matter had
been called out twice. The order passed by this Court on the said date
reads as follows:
“1. The matter was called out twice today.
2. It has been observed that the Appellant remained unrepresented
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:47:19
RFA(COMM) 498/2024 Page 2 of 8

during the last three dates of hearing.
3. Even today, the position remains unchanged. It appears that the
Appellant is no longer interested in pursuing the present Appeal.
4. In view of the above, the present Appeal is dismissed for non-
prosecution. The pending application is also disposed of.”

7. Thus, the Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in the
context of the Appellant’s absence on the date of hearing and the
preceding defaults recorded by this Court.
8. In the application seeking restoration, the Appellant submits
that the non-appearance of its counsel on 08.01.2026 was neither
intentional nor deliberate, but resulted from unforeseen circumstances
beyond the control of the Appellant and its counsel.
9. It is averred that, during the first week of January 2026, the
counsel’s office suffered a severe drainage and sewage blockage,
resulting in flooding of the office premises with contaminated water.
According to the Appellant, the resulting conditions necessitated an
emergency relocation to a temporary, off-site location. During the
shifting, the case diary and other records were allegedly misplaced,
disrupting the office’s administrative and clerical arrangements and
resulting in the date of hearing in the present Appeal being missed.
10. The Appellant contends that the default was bona fide and that
it ought not to suffer on account of circumstances arising in the office
of its counsel. Reliance is also placed upon the asserted compliance
with the direction to deposit the decretal amount as evidence of the
Appellant’s intention to pursue the Appeal.
11. In the accompanying application under Section 5 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:47:19
RFA(COMM) 498/2024 Page 3 of 8

Limitation Act, 1963, the Appellant reiterates the explanation
concerning the alleged flooding and relocation of the counsel’s office.
It is further asserted that the dismissal order came to the counsel’s
knowledge only in August 2026, when the Appellant inquired about
the status of the Appeal, and that the applications were thereafter
prepared without further delay. The Appellant also submits that the
Appeal ought to be restored to enable adjudication of its challenge to
the impugned judgment and decree on merits.
CONSIDERATION & ANALYSIS
12. The applications raise two connected, but distinct, questions.
The Appellant must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the delay in
approaching this Court and establish sufficient cause for its non-
appearance when the Appeal was called for hearing. The desirability
of adjudicating a dispute on merits is a relevant consideration, but it
does not dispense with either requirement. It is also pertinent to note
that, despite an opportunity having been afforded by this Court,
learned counsel for the Appellant failed to file an application for
condonation of delay setting out a proper and satisfactory explanation
for the delay in seeking restoration.
13. The explanation furnished by the Appellant rests principally
upon the alleged flooding of the counsel’s office, the consequent
emergency relocation and the misplacement of case records. Even
assuming that the office encountered the difficulties described, the
Appellant was required to explain how those circumstances resulted in
the non-appearance on 08.01.2026 and why they prevented timely
steps from being taken thereafter.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:47:19
RFA(COMM) 498/2024 Page 4 of 8

14. The applications, however, describe the alleged disruption in
general terms. They do not sufficiently particularise its duration or its
precise impact upon the conduct of the present litigation. Nor do they
provide a clear account of the efforts undertaken to retrieve or
reconstruct the case diary, ascertain the status of pending matters or
resume the tracking of hearing dates after the relocation. The
explanation also does not indicate when the relevant records were
recovered or the office arrangements were restored sufficiently to
enable the present Appeal to be attended to.
15. Of particular significance is the order dated 08.01.2026, which
expressly records that the Appellant had remained unrepresented
during the preceding three dates of hearing as well. The explanation
furnished is directed primarily towards the alleged emergency arising
in the first week of January 2026. It does not satisfactorily account for
the earlier defaults or explain the circumstances in which the Appeal
remained unattended over the relevant period. The dismissal,
therefore, cannot be considered solely in the context of an isolated
incident on the date of hearing.
16. The Court recognises that an unforeseen disruption at counsel’s
office may, in an appropriate case, constitute a relevant circumstance
in considering an application for restoration. Equally, a litigant should
not ordinarily be prejudiced by a genuine and adequately explained
lapse on the part of counsel. These considerations, however, do not
dispense with the requirement that the circumstances relied upon must
have a credible connection with the default and that reasonable
diligence must be demonstrated once the impediment ceases to
operate.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:47:19
RFA(COMM) 498/2024 Page 5 of 8

17. In the present case, the assertion that the Appellant had
entrusted the matter to counsel and was unaware of the day-to-day
proceedings does not, by itself, explain the entire period of inaction.
The applications do not sufficiently set out the steps taken to ascertain
the status of the Appeal following the alleged disruption. The
assertion that the dismissal order came to the counsel’s knowledge
only in August 2026 is also not accompanied by particulars
identifying the date or circumstances of the inquiry, the manner in
which the dismissal was discovered, or the sequence of events leading
to the filing of the restoration application. The general statement that
the applications were prepared without further delay does not
adequately fill these gaps.
18. The application seeking condonation of delay contains a further
discrepancy in the computation of the period sought to be condoned.
Paragraph 1 refers to a delay of 221 days, whereas the title and prayer
refer to 256 days. The application is dated 15.09.2026, while the
restoration application is stated to have been filed on 01.08.2026. The
precise period of delay must be ascertained with reference to the
actual filing record. The inconsistent figures have not been reconciled
in the application. Although an error in computation would not, by
itself, necessarily warrant rejection, the discrepancy assumes
significance when considered alongside the absence of a sufficiently
clear and particularised explanation for the delay.
19. The Appellant has also relied upon its alleged compliance with
the direction dated 21.11.2024 to deposit the decretal amount. Such
compliance is relevant to the Appellant’s conduct at the earlier stage
of the proceedings. However, it does not dispense with the obligation
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:47:19
RFA(COMM) 498/2024 Page 6 of 8

to attend subsequent hearings or to establish sufficient cause for
seeking restoration after dismissal. The question before this Court is
whether the subsequent default and delay have been satisfactorily
explained, and not merely whether the Appellant initially
demonstrated an intention to pursue the Appeal.
20. Similarly, the submission that the Appellant has substantial
grounds to challenge the impugned judgment and decree cannot, by
itself, justify restoration. While adjudication on merits is ordinarily
desirable, it cannot substitute for the statutory requirements governing
condonation of delay and restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-
prosecution. The requisite cause for seeking such relief must first be
established.
21. On a cumulative consideration of the material placed before this
Court, the explanation furnished does not satisfactorily account for the
repeated non-appearance recorded in the order dated 08.01.2026 or the
subsequent delay in seeking restoration. The alleged office
emergency, the disruption of records and the asserted date of
knowledge have not been explained with sufficient particulars to
establish a continuous and credible account of the default and the
ensuing inaction.
22. This Court is, therefore, not satisfied that sufficient cause has
been established for condoning the delay in filing the restoration
application. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963, accordingly, does not merit acceptance. In the absence of a
satisfactory explanation for the delay and for the non-appearance, the
Appellant has also failed to establish sufficient cause warranting
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:47:19
RFA(COMM) 498/2024 Page 7 of 8

restoration under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC.
23. It is clarified that the present determination is confined to the
applications seeking condonation of delay and restoration. In view of
the dismissal of those applications, it is neither necessary nor
appropriate to examine the merits of the challenge to the judgment and
decree dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court.
CONCLUSION
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, CM APPL. 70567/2026,
seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, is
dismissed. Consequently, CM APPL. 70566/2026, seeking restoration
of RFA (COMM) 498/2024, is also dismissed.
25. RFA (COMM) 498/2024 shall accordingly remain dismissed in
terms of the order dated 08.01.2026. The present order shall not be
construed as an adjudication on the merits of the grounds raised in the
Appeal.
26. The applications stand disposed of in the above terms.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.


BHARAT PARASHAR, J.
OCTOBER 09, 2026
s.godara/pal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:47:19
RFA(COMM) 498/2024 Page 8 of 8