Nirmaljeet Singh vs Guljeet Singh & Ors.

$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 24.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010396162026
+ FAO 268/2026, CM APPLs. 57058-60/2026

NIRMALJEET SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Varun Gaba, Advocate

versus

GULJEET SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kunal Madan, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CM APPL. 57058/2026
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
CM APPL. 57060/2026
1. The present application has been filed seeking condonation of
24 days delay in re-filing the accompanying appeal. The appellant
submits that the appeal was initially filed on 17.07.2026, within the
prescribed period of limitation, and that the delay occurred on account
of time taken in removing the Registry objections.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay is
neither intentional nor deliberate and occurred on account of the
appellant's counsel being occupied with professional commitments and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
FAO 268/2026 Page 1 of 8

court matters. It is further submitted that the appeal was otherwise
filed within the period of limitation.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated in the
application, the delay of 24 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal
is condoned.
4. The application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
FAO 268/2026 and CM APPL. 57059/2026 (stay)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was
defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court, assailing the order
dated 26.05.2026 passed in Misc. DJ No.905/2025 in Civil Suit
No.620/2020, whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking setting aside of the ex-
parte judgment and decree dated 03.11.2023, came to be dismissed.
The appellant also assails the consequential order of the same date
whereby the learned Trial Court directed release of a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- along with accrued interest in favour of respondent
No.1.
2. The suit, being Civil Suit No.620/2020, was instituted by
respondent No.1 seeking damages, permanent injunction and
mandatory injunction in respect of property bearing No.17/6, West
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 . The appellant was arrayed as
defendant No.1, while respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein were defendant
Nos.2 and 3 respectively. As per the plaint, respondent No.1 was
residing on the ground floor of the aforesaid property, whereas the
appellant was stated to be residing on the first floor.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
FAO 268/2026 Page 2 of 8

3. The grievance raised in the suit was principally with regard to
alleged unauthorized construction on the first floor, installation of
pipes and consequent seepage causing damage to the ground floor
premises. It was further alleged that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had
encroached upon the parking area and obstructed the ingress and
egress of respondent No.1. It was alleged that despite repeated
requests and a PCR call dated 20.10.2020, the aforesaid issues were
not remedied.

4. The suit was instituted on 18.11.2020. On account of the
prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, summons was sought to be served
through electronic mode. The appellant, however, did not enter
appearance before the learned Trial Court and was proceeded ex-parte
along with the other defendants vide order dated 08.06.2022.
Respondent No.1 thereafter led ex-parte evidence and the suit
culminated in the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2023. The learned
Trial Court, relying upon the unrebutted evidence led by respondent
No.1, decreed the suit and awarded damages of Rs.10,00,000/- besides
granting the injunctive reliefs.
5. The appellant thereafter approached the learned Trial Court by
way of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. His case was that
he had never been served with the summons and had no knowledge of
the pendency of the suit.
6. The appellant further stated that he came to know of the ex-parte
decree only in July 2025 when certain documents were received on his
WhatsApp from respondent No.2 in connection with proceedings
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
FAO 268/2026 Page 3 of 8

before this Court. He thereafter obtained the relevant record and filed
the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 17.09.2025.
7. The learned Trial Court, however, held that the appellant had
knowledge of the decree at least on 19.07.2025/22.07.2025 and that
the application, having been filed beyond the prescribed period of 30
days, was barred by limitation. It further held that the appellant had
not established that he was not duly served, relying, inter alia , upon
the process server's report regarding service through WhatsApp. The
application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was consequently dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial
Court erred in treating the disputed electronic communication as
conclusive proof of service. It is submitted that the appellant had
consistently denied receipt of summons and that the process server's
report itself records that the mobile number was answered by a third
person, namely Amarjeet Singh . It is further submitted that the
appellant's knowledge of the decree arose only upon the subsequent
communication received from respondent No.2 and that the
application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was thereafter filed without
undue delay. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged
WhatsApp service could not have been treated as sufficient without
examining whether the requisite mode of service had in fact been
completed in accordance with the applicable directions prevailing
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellant has specifically relied
upon the order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the Supreme Court in In
Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation , Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Civil) No.3 of 2020 by order dated 10.07.2020 .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
FAO 268/2026 Page 4 of 8

9. The respondent has opposed the appeal and supported the
impugned order.
10. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the material
on record establishes due service of summons upon the appellant and,
consequently, whether his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC
was rightly rejected as being barred by limitation.
11. The process server's report records that the summons were sent
electronically to mobile number 9210894210 and that the call was
answered by one Amarjeet Singh, who represented himself to be a
relative of the appellant and stated that he would intimate him
regarding the summons. The report thereafter records that the
summons were sent to the said mobile number. The difficulty,
however, is that the alleged communication is itself disputed by the
appellant. More importantly, the report does not establish that the
summons were actually received and brought to the appellant's notice.
The mere fact that a particular mobile number was associated with the
appellant cannot, in the facts of the present case, by itself establish that
the summons were duly served upon him, particularly when the
process server's own report records interaction with a third person.
12. In proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the Court is
required to examine whether the defendant was duly served or, where
service is not established, whether sufficient cause prevented his
appearance. The question of actual notice assumes particular
significance where the defendant has remained completely absent from
the proceedings and disputes the very receipt of summons.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
FAO 268/2026 Page 5 of 8

13. In the present case, the learned Trial Court principally
proceeded on the premise that the appellant's mobile number was used
for transmission of the summons and that the appellant could not
dispute the mode of electronic service. However, the existence of the
mobile number and the factum of transmission are distinct from proof
that the summons were actually received by the appellant. The
intervening circumstance of the call being answered by a third person,
coupled with the appellant's consistent denial of having received the
summons, required a more cautious examination. The material placed
before this Court does not justify treating the receipt of the WhatsApp
communication as equivalent to conclusive knowledge of the
summons so as to non-suit the appellant without examining the
surrounding circumstances. The appellant's case regarding the manner
in which the communication came to his notice cannot be rejected
merely on the basis of an inference drawn from the electronic record.
1
14. The Supreme Court in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada , has
held that sufficient cause for non-appearance has to be considered in a
manner advancing substantial justice, while in Parimal v. Veena @
2
Bharti , it has been reiterated that the expression "sufficient cause"
must be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and
the discretion under Order IX Rule 13 CPC exercised judiciously.
15. At the same time, the Court is conscious that Order IX Rule 13
CPC cannot be invoked merely to reopen an ex-parte decree where a
defendant had due notice of the proceedings and sufficient opportunity

1
(2000) 3 SCC 54
2
(2011) 3 SCC 545
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
FAO 268/2026 Page 6 of 8

to appear. The present case, however, turns on whether such notice has
been satisfactorily established. On the material before this Court, the
circumstances surrounding the alleged electronic service and the
subsequent assertion of knowledge create sufficient doubt to warrant
an opportunity to the appellant to contest the suit.
16. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the appellant ought not
to be deprived of an opportunity to contest the suit on the basis of a
disputed mode of service, particularly when he has approached the
Court after claiming knowledge of the decree and has expressed his
willingness to contest the proceedings. The prejudice caused to
respondent No.1 can adequately be addressed by imposing appropriate
costs.
17. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 26.05.2026 is set aside and the application under Order IX Rule
13 CPC is allowed. Consequently, the ex-parte judgment and decree
dated 03.11.2023 is set aside qua the present appellant/defendant No.1.
18. The appellant shall pay costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand only) to respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from
today.
19. The consequential order dated 26.05.2026 directing release of
Rs.2,00,000/- along with accrued interest in favour of respondent No.1
shall also stand set aside qua the present appellant. The amount, if not
already released, shall continue to remain deposited with the learned
Trial Court and shall abide by further orders in the suit. In case the
amount has already been released, the same shall be subject to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
FAO 268/2026 Page 7 of 8

appropriate orders to be passed by the learned Trial Court in
accordance with law.
20. The present appeal, along with pending application(s), is
disposed of in the above terms.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
AUGUST 24, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
FAO 268/2026 Page 8 of 8