The Aryan Educational Society vs Aaryan International School

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: 03 November,2026
# CNR No. DLHC010735732023

+ CS(COMM) 46/2024
THE ARYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Mohammad
Atif and Ms. Somesha Gupta, Advocates.

versus

AARYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL .....Defendant
Through: Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal and Mr.
Pankaj Kumar, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J.
\
I.A. 12420/2025 (u/O IX Rule 13 r/w Section 151 CPC on behalf of
Defendant) and
I.A. 12419/2025 (u/S 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 r/w Section 151 CPC on
behalf of Defendant)

1. This judgment will dispose of both the applications filed on behalf of
the Defendant, one under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for
setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 25.10.2024 and the other
for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex
parte decree.
2. Present suit was filed by the Plaintiff seeking decree of permanent
injunction restraining the Defendant and all others acting on its behalf from
operating a school or any other institution with similar services using the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 1 of 19

impugned marks ‘Aaryan International School’ and
and/or
any other mark deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s registered marks
and
. Plaintiff is an educational
institution and runs a school in the name of ‘The Aryan School’ situated in
Dehradun, which is an internationally renowned English medium day
boarding school and is the registered proprietor of the aforesaid two
trademarks in Class 41. Addtionally, Plaintiff is the registrant of the domain
name www.thearyanschool.com , which provides a platform for parents and
students to receive information about the school. Aggrieved by the adoption
of the impugned marks by the Defendant, which is a school by the name of
‘Aaryan International School’, Plaintiff filed the suit for restraining the
Defendant from infringing its registered trademarks, alleging that the rival
marks were deceptively similar.
3. Summons were issued in the suit on 18.01.2024 and were served on
the Defendant through speed post on 02.02.2024, as recorded by the learned
Joint Registrar in order dated 18.03.2024, however, there was no appearance
on behalf of the Defendant on the said date. Learned Registrar directed filing
of the written statement as per rules and matter was placed before Court for
23.04.2024, the date already fixed. On 23.04.2024, matter was renotified for
02.09.2024, on which date application filed by the Plaintiff under Order VIII
Rule 10 CPC being I.A. 38131/2024 was listed. Since there was no
appearance on behalf of the Defendant and no written statement was filed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 2 of 19

within the maximum period of 120 days, Defendant’s right to file written
statement was closed and it was set ex parte. Defendant neither took steps
for setting aside order dated 02.09.2024 nor joined proceedings thereafter
and thus on 25.10.2024, Court passed an ex parte decree of permanent
injunction in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c),
(d) and (e) of the plaint and awarded damages and costs amounting to Rs.
5,00,000/-.

4. Subsequently, Defendant filed the present applications in which
notice was issued on 15.05.2025. Case of the Defendant in the application
for setting aside the judgement/decree is that Defendant learnt of the ex
parte judgment/decree only on 14.02.2025 when the Local Commissioner,
appointed by the Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 in execution petition Ex.
P. 16/2025, visited the premises of Defendant’s school and apprised of the
decree. This came as a surprise to the Defendant since its Authorized
Representative/Authorized Signatory, in consultation with the Chairperson
of the School, had engaged Mr. Jati Ram, Advocate in March, 2024 and
executed a vakalatnama in his favour, authorising him to represent the
Defendant in the suit and to do all acts relevant and necessary to defend the
suit. On being engaged, counsel had assured that he shall appear in the suit
as and when the matter was listed and will keep the Defendant updated on
its status as also call upon the representatives of the Defendant for
comments/assistance, whenever required. In fact, Mr. Jati Ram, regularly
reassured the Defendant that there was nothing to worry as he and his office
associates were handling the matter and there was no reason for the
respresentatives of the Defendant to disbelieve the counsel.
5. Defendant states that no one knew or was informed that the counsel
hired for defending the suit was not appearing in the matter, contrary to his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 3 of 19

assurances or even that an ex parte decree had been passed in favour of the
Plaintiff . On learning of the ex parte decree through the Local
Commissioner, Defendant’s representative immediately contacted Mr. Jati
Ram to find out the reason for his non-appearance and making false
representation to the Defendant and in response, counsel informed that he
could not appear and keep track of the case owing to his ill health and that
he had assigned the matter to his office associates, who also failed to keep
track of the matter. Therefore, there was complete negligence and
carelessness on the part of the counsel and his office, for which Defendant
cannot be blamed.
6. It is further stated that since the suit was decreed ex parte due to the
fault of the counsel, Defendant’s representative requested Mr. Jati Ram to
take remedial steps and he assured that an appeal shall be filed, but even the
draft of the appeal was not shared, despite repeated requests and follow ups.
Realising that the counsel was not taking the matter seriously and his earlier
negligence and carelessness had gravely prejudiced the Defendant, it was
decided by the management to engage a new counsel. Accordingly, the
present counsel was engaged, who after receiving the necessary documents
and instructions on merits of the case, filed the present applications .
7. Learned counsel for the Defendant submits that Defendant was
prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the matter and thus the ex
parte judgement and decree be set aside. On receipt of summons, Defendant
took immediate steps to engage Mr. Jati Ram, Advocate, for defending the
suit as the allegations of infringement of Plaintiff’s trademarks were false.
Defendant was all through under a bona fide impression that Mr. Jati Ram
was appearing in the matter and taking all necessary steps to defend the suit,
since each time an update was sought, he assured that there was nothing to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 4 of 19

worry. It was only when Defendant learnt of the ex parte decree through the
Local Commissioner and confronted Mr. Jati Ram, that he admitted that he
had not appeared on the various dates due to his ill-health but even then
rendered no explanation for not informing the Defendant, which had
bestowed complete trust in the counsel. Since non-appearance of the
Defendant was due to negligence of the counsel, Defendant should not
suffer for his fault. It was strenously urged that it is no longer res integra
that clients should not suffer for the negligence and fault of their counsels
and to buttress this plea, reliance was placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and
Another v. Raghu Raj, (2008) 13 SCC 395, where it was held that when a
party engages an advocate, who is expected to appear at the time of hearing
but fails to so appear, normally, a party should not suffer on account of
default or non-appearance of the advocate. Reliance was also placed on an
earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal
and Another, (1981) 2 SCC 788, for the said legal proposition.
8. Learned counsel for the Defendant further submitted that recently in
Dwarika Prasad (D), thr. LRs v. Prithvi Raj Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3828, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court
upholding the order of the Additional District Judge, who had set aside the
order of the Trial Court, allowing the application under Order IX Rule 13
CPC, observing that Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities
but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on
merits and thus reiterated and reaffirmed the law laid down in Rafiq (supra).
To further support its case that there was ‘sufficient cause’ which prevented
the Defendant from appearing in the suit proceedings, learned counsel
brought forth that husband of the Chairperson of the Defendant was made
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 5 of 19

co-accused in FIR No. 191/2023 registered at PS: Mohan Garden, Delhi and
was arrested on 30.11.2024, owing to which Defendant could not closely
follow up the matter with the counsel.
9. In so far as the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 seeking condonation of delay of 196 days in filing accompanying
application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is concerned, learned counsel for
the Defendant submitted that the delay was bona fide and for reasons
beyond the control of the Defendant and in support reiterated that Defendant
learnt of the decree only on 14.02.2025, when the Local Commissioner
visited the premises of the Defendant and blamed the counsel Mr. Jati Ram
for non-appearance, non-filing of written statement and keeping the
Defendant in the dark about the passing of the decree. In totality of these
facts and circumstances, it was prayed that delay be condoned and the
ex parte judgment and decree be set aside, permitting the Defendant to
contest the suit on merits.
10. Arguing on behalf of the Plaintiff, basis the replies filed to the
applications, Mr. Varun Singh, learned counsel argued that the applications
deserves to be outrightly rejected being devoid of merit. Defendant was
completely aware that Plaintiff was instituting the suit since Plaintiff had
effected advance service upon the Defendant through email at email address
[email protected] , given on the website of the school
and ought to have followed up the matter. On 18.01.2024, summons were
issued in the suit and notice was issued in the application for interim
injunction and admittedly, summons and notice were served on the
Defendant through speed post on 01.02.2024 and through email on
15.02.2024. Learned Registrar recorded in the order dated 18.03.2024 that
Defendant was duly served but there was no appearance, despite service.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 6 of 19

Since written statement was also not filed within the maximum condonable
period, Plaintiff filed an application under Order VIII Rule 10, which was
listed on 02.09.2024. On the same date, Defendant’s right to file written
statement was closed and owing to non-appearance, Defendant was set
ex parte, but no steps were taken by the Defendant for recall of the said
order and Court rightly decreed the suit.
11. It was also submitted that after the decree was passed, Plaintiff sent a
notice on 21.11.2024 to the Defendant seeking compliance, however, the
same was ignored and Defendant continued to infringe Plaintiff’s registered
trademarks, despite permanent injunction, leading to the filing of the
execution petition, wherein Local Commissioner was appointed and vide
order dated 24.04.2025, Court granted two weeks to the Defendant to
comply with the judgement, failing which the Chairperson of the school
would remain present in Court. It is only after this order was passed and as a
counter blast, present applications were filed by the Defendant belatedly, for
setting aside the decree and condonation of delay, with an intent to delay
and obstruct the execution of the decree.
12. It was urged that the scope of jurisdiction of the Court while deciding
an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is restricted to enquiring
whether summons were duly served on the Defendant and/or whether
Defendant was prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ from appearing when the suit
is called for hearing and Defendant has failed to establish both these
grounds. Defendant’s entire story rests on the alleged negligence of its
previous counsel Mr. Jati Ram, but there is no independent or corroborative
documentary evidence to establish the alleged negligence and while it is trite
that a client should not suffer for the fault of his counsel, it is equally settled
that litigant cannot wrongly and falsely shift the blame on the counsel
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 7 of 19

without credible evidence to support the allegation of negligence. In fact, on
the record of the case, as it stands today, Defendant has not even placed
material to prove the engagement of Mr. Jati Ram as its counsel in the form
of vakalatnama or proof of payment of professional fee or any inter se
communication or correspondence and admittedly, no complaint has been
filed with the Bar Council against him. All these factors are pointers to the
fact that no counsel was engaged by the Defendant and the averments in the
application for setting aside the decree are false and fabricated to the
knowledge and belief of the authorised signatory of the Defendant and the
story of alleged negligence of the counsel is only to cover up Defendant’s
conscious decision to stay away from the proceedings and consequently, no
ground is made out for setting aside the ex parte decree.
13. Without prejudice, it was asserted that assuming the counsel was
engaged and was negligent in taking necessary steps in defending the suit, as
a party to the suit for infringement, Defendant had a duty to be diligent and
vigilant in defending the case and could not place the responsibility entirely
on the counsel. As per Defendant’s own claim in the application, counsel
was engaged in first week of March, 2024 and if this is to be believed, the
ex parte decree was passed on 25.10.2024 i.e. after seven months and it is
highly improbable and unbelievable that a commercial entity of Defendant’s
stature will not follow up the matter with the counsel for several months to
ascertain the status of the case or not take steps to search the website of this
Court, since all orders and judgements including the status of each case are
uploaded.
14. To support his arguments, learned counsel relied on the judgement in
Rajneesh Kumar and Another v. Ved Prakash, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3380, where the Supreme Court rejected litigant’s attempt to put the blame
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 8 of 19

on his counsel observing that over a period of time a tendency has emerged
that litigants blame their lawyers and allege negligence and carelessness in
attending the proceedings before the Court and assuming that a lawyer is
negligent in a given case, this by itself cannot be a ground to condone the
delay and/or restitute the proceedings, inasmuch as the litigant also owes a
duty to be vigilant in prosecuting his own rights. In Hameed Joharan
(Dead) and Others v. Abdul Salam (Dead) by LRs. And Others, (2001) 7
SCC 573, the Supreme Court held that Courts should not tolerate an indolent
litigant since delay defeats equity. Reliance was also placed on the
judgments in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd.,
2017 SCC OnLine Del 8491 and Hira Sweets & Confectionary Private
Limited and Others v. Hira Confectioners, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1823,
for the said legal proposition.
15. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their rival
submissions.
16. Present applications are filed by the Defendant in a suit filed by the
Plaintiff for restraining the Defendant from infringing its registered
trademarks on the ground that the impugned marks are deceptively similar.
Summons were issued in the suit on 18.01.2024 and were admittedly served
on the Defendant. The entire case of the Defendant for setting aside the ex
parte decree is predicated on the alleged negligence and inaction/omissions
of Mr. Jati Ram, advocate, who was purportedly engaged to represent the
Defendant in the suit. However, the averments of negligence and
carelessness in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the application under Order IX Rule 13
CPC are unsubstantiated. There is no material on record to corroborate the
allegations of negligence, dereliction of duty or professional misconduct on
the part of the counsel. Significantly, there is no document to establish that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 9 of 19

the counsel was, in fact, engaged, instructed or duly authorised by the
Defendant to appear or act on its behalf. No vakalatnama, letter of
engagement, written instructions, correspondence or any other
contemporaneous document has been placed on record to establish the
alleged professional engagement. In these circumstances, the very
foundational premise of the allegation, namely, the existence of advocate-
client relationship, is not established and sans proof that Mr. Jati Ram was
entrusted with the case to represent the Defendant, question of attributing
negligence, professional lapse or misconduct to the counsel does not arise.
17. Proviso to Order IX Rule 13 CPC allows a Defendant, against whom
a decree is passed ex parte to apply to the Court to set aside the decree,
subject to satisfying the Court either that there was no due service of
summons in the suit or that Defendant was prevented by sufficient cause
from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. Second Proviso
proscribes the Court from setting aside an ex parte decree on the sole ground
that there has been irregularity in service of summons, if the Court is
satisfied that Defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient
time to appear and answer the case set up by the Plaintiff. In Parimal v.
Veena alias Bharti, (2011) 3 SCC 545 , the Supreme Court succinctly
interpreted the term ‘sufficient cause’ as follows:-
“13. “Sufficient cause” is an expression which has been used in a large
number of statutes. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or
“enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended.
Therefore, word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a
platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose
intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly
examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man.
In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party had not acted in a
negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of
the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to
have been “not acting diligently” or “remaining inactive”. However, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 10 of 19

facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to
enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that
whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously.
(Vide Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361] , Lonand
Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi [AIR 1968 SC 222] , Surinder Singh
Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood [(1992) 1 SCC 70 : AIR 1992 SC 1540] and
Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial
Development Corpn. [(2010) 5 SCC 459 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 50 : (2010)
2 SCC (Cri) 1291 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 448])”

18. In the instant case, Defendant admits service of summons and there is
no averment in the application that ‘sufficient time’ was not available to
appear. On the contrary, the averment is that counsel was engaged, who
repeatedly assured that he was appearing in the matter and taking care of the
suit. Plaintiff is also right that going by Defendant’s stand that counsel was
engaged in first week of March, 2024, looking at the fact that the ex parte
decree was passed on 25.10.2024 i.e. after a period exceeding seven months,
it is unbelievable that an entity like the Defendant will not follow up with
the counsel to ascertain the status of the suit and seek update for over seven
months. Apart from engaging the counsel, if any, Defendant owed a duty to
be vigilant of his rights and diligently follow up the proceedings in Court,
which it failed to do. In today’s age when the case status and
orders/judgments are uploaded on the website of the Court, Defendant
cannot claim that it was unaware of case status and/or non-appearance of the
counsel, if any, and/or of non-filing of the written statement or the order
whereby Defendant was set ex parte. Accordingly, the plea of alleged
negligence of the counsel deserves to be rejected as an afterthought and an
attempt to shift the responsibility of Defendant’s own failure to diligently
pursue and defend the proceedings. Defendant has failed to establish
sufficient cause for its non-appearance within the meaning of Order IX Rule
13 CPC and the application being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 11 of 19

19. Courts have consistently condemned the practice of litigants placing
the entire blame on the counsels without concrete proof of negligence and
on mere conjectures and held that in addition to engaging counsels, litigants
owe a duty to be vigilant of their rights and prosecute their cases diligently.
In Rajneesh Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“ 10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the
advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have
noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to
blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the
proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the
concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a
ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to
be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about
the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The
litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on
the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek
relief.
11. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the
case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 185,
wherein this Court observed as under:—
“8. The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements,
made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and
statements of the principal i.e. the party who engage him. It is true
that in certain situations, the court may, in the interest of justice, set
aside a dismissal order or an ex parte decree notwithstanding the
negligence and/or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that
the client was an innocent litigant but there is no such absolute rule
that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No
such absolute immunity can be recognized. Such an absolute rule
would make the working of the system extremely difficult. The
observations made in Rafiq [(1981) 2 SCC 788 : AIR 1981 SC 1400]
must not be understood as an absolute proposition. As we have
mentioned hereinabove, this was an on-going suit posted for final
hearing after a lapse of seven years of its institution. It was not a
second appeal filed by a villager residing away from the city, where
the court is located. The defendant is also not a rustic ignorant
villager but a private limited company with its head office at Calcutta
itself and managed by educated businessmen who know where their
interest lies. It is evident that when their applications were not
deposed of before taking up the suit for final hearing they felt piqued
and refused to appear before the court. May be, it was part of their
delaying tactics as alleged by the plaintiff. May be not. But one thing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 12 of 19

is clear they chose to non-cooperate with the court. Having adopted
such a stand towards the court, the defendant has no right to ask its
indulgence. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to
make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or
significance of the proceedings is a theory which cannot be accepted
and ought not to have been accepted.”
(Emphasis supplied)”
20. In Moddus Media (supra), this Court held as follows:-
“ 12. In these presents, the allegation of the appellant-defendant company
is that their lawyer has stopped appearing after 10-11-2014. It is also
alleged that after the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-8-2015,
their lawyer told them that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff company has
been dismissed and they requested to supply them copies of order and
decree. These allegations are not found mentioned in the complaint lodged
with the Bar Council of India. If their lawyer stopped appearing from
10-11-2014, the appellant-defendant company should have contacted
their lawyer or engaged some other one in the matter or at least they
should have started appearing in person but they did not bother to inquire
from their previous counsel as to why he stopped appearing w.e.f.
10-11-2014. If they were informed by their counsel after the decision
in the suit and copy of order was not supplied, they should have
gone to lawyer personally or to court to obtain copies of orders or
should have taken assistance of other lawyer. But they were not serious at
all.
13. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected
to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court
of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be
permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the
blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay
condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written
statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep
slumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed
by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and
trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or
significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the
appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and
ought not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic
illiterate person but a (P) Ltd. Company managed by educated
businessmen, who know very well where their interest lies. The litigant is
to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings. If the
litigant does not appear in the court and leaves the case at the mercy of his
counsel without caring as to what different frivolous pleas/defences being
taken by his counsel for adjournments is bound to suffer. If the litigant
does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders of the court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 13 of 19

so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the
consequences.
14. In a case before Division Bench of this court in Man Singh (deceased)
through L. Rs. v. Gaon Sabha Jindpur (2012) 4 ILR (Del) 50, it was
contended that the appellants were under the bonafide impression that the
matter is being properly looked after by the counsel. It was held that the
litigant has to be vigilant and he should contact and take part in the
proceedings with due diligence and if negligence on the part of the litigant
is established in a particular case, then the courts are not to come to the
rescue of such applicants. The Division Bench of this court has also cited
a decision of the Supreme Court, which reads as under:
“7. The Supreme Court in Hameed Joharan v. Abdul Salam, (2001) 7
SCC 573 2001 Ind law SC 21137 made the following observations:
“……..It cannot but be the general policy of our law to use the
legal diligence and this has been the consistent legal theory from
the ancient times : even the doctrine of prescription in Roman law
prescribes such a concept of legal diligence and since its
incorporation therein, the doctrine has always been favoured
rather than claiming disfavour. Law courts never tolerate an
indolent litigant since delay defeats equity - the Latin maxim
vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists
those who are indolent). As a matter of fact, lapse of time is a
species for forfeiture of rights……””

21. It will be useful in this context to allude to the judgment of this Court
in Hira Sweets (supra), relevant passages of which are as follows:-
“ 14. In Sudarshan Sareen case [Sudarshan Sareen v. National Small
Industries Corpn. Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4412] , a Division Bench of
this Court while holding that the appellant therein, was wilfully negligent
in not appearing and thus rejecting his prayer for setting aside of an ex
parte decree, relied on the following passage in Parimal v.
Veena [Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545] , where the expression
“sufficient cause” was interpreted as under:
“13. ‘Sufficient cause’ is an expression which has been used in a
large number of statutes. The meaning of the word ‘sufficient’ is
‘adequate’ or ‘enough’, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the
purpose intended. Therefore, word ‘sufficient’ embraces no more than
that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to
accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances
existing in a case and duly examined from the viewpoint of a
reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, ‘sufficient
cause’ means that the party had not acted in a negligent manner or
there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 14 of 19

circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been
‘not acting diligently’ or ‘remaining inactive’. However, the facts and
circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the
court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever
the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously.
(Vide Ramlalv. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields
Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361], Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri
Gosavi [Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi, AIR 1968 SC
222], Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood [Surinder Singh
Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood, (1992) 1 SCC 70] and Oriental Aroma
Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development
Corpn. [Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat
Industrial Development Corpn., (2010) 5 SCC 459])
∗ ∗ ∗
15. While deciding whether there is sufficient cause or not, the court
must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the
parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not
prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the
illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it.
(Vide State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh [State of
Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, (2000) 9 SCC 94] , Madanlal
v. Shyamlal [Madanlal v. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 SCC 535] , Davinder
Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. [Davinder Pal
Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd., (2002) 3 SCC 156]
, Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan
Sao, (2002) 3 SCC 195] , Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand [Kaushalya
Devi v. Prem Chand, (2005) 10 SCC 127] , Srei International Finance
Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. [Srei International Finance
Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 95]
and Reena Sadh v. Anjana Enterprises [Reena Sadh v. Anjana
Enterprises, (2008) 12 SCC 589] .)
16. In order to determine the application under Order 9 Rule 13CPC,
the test that has to be applied is whether the defendant honestly and
sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called on for
hearing and did his best to do so. Sufficient cause is thus the cause for
which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Therefore,
the applicant must approach the court with a reasonable defence.
Sufficient cause is a question of fact and the court has to exercise its
discretion in the varied and special circumstances in the case at hand.
There cannot be a straitjacket formula of universal application.”
15. Recently, the Supreme Court in A. Murugesan v. Jamuna Rani [A.
Murugesan v. Jamuna Rani, (2019) 20 SCC 803] affirmed its earlier view
in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada [G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada,
(2000) 3 SCC 54] , which is reproduced as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 15 of 19

“7. Under Order 9 Rule 13CPC an ex parte decree passed against a
defendant can be set aside upon satisfaction of the Court that either
the summons were not duly served upon the defendant or he was
prevented by any ‘sufficient cause’ from appearing when the suit was
called on for hearing. Unless ‘sufficient cause’ is shown for non-
appearance of the defendant in the case on the date of hearing, the
court has no power to set aside an ex parte decree. The words ‘was
prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing’ must be liberally
construed to enable the court to do complete justice between the
parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to the
erring party. Sufficient cause for the purpose of Order 9 Rule 13 has
to be construed as an elastic expression for which no hard-and-fast
guidelines can be prescribed. The courts have a wide discretion in
deciding the sufficient cause keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of each case. The ‘sufficient cause’ for non-appearance
refers to the date on which the absence was made a ground for
proceeding ex parte and cannot be stretched to rely upon other
circumstances anterior in time. If ‘sufficient cause’ is made out for
non-appearance of the defendant on the date fixed for hearing when
ex parte proceedings were initiated against him, he cannot be
penalised for his previous negligence which had been overlooked and
thereby condoned earlier. In a case where the defendant approaches
the court immediately and within the statutory time specified, the
discretion is normally exercised in his favour, provided the absence
was not mala fide or intentional. For the absence of a party in the
case the other side can be compensated by adequate costs and the lis
decided on merits.”
16. In the present case, although the defendant has blamed her counsel for
his non-appearance which resulted in passing of the decree however, a
perusal of the judgment dated 1-2-2019 would show that the same was
passed after considering the merits of the case.
17. A perusal of the case record would show that the defendant had
applied for a certified copy of the decree on 29-5-2019 which admittedly,
was received by her on 18-7-2019. The defendant has failed to state that
after becoming aware of the passing of the ex parte decree on 18-7-2019,
what steps were taken by it to seek setting aside of the same. It appears
that the defendant rather preferred to sit over it. The captioned
applications came to be filed on 19-10-2020, only after the plaintiffs filed
the execution petition.
18. The Supreme Court in decisions relied by learned counsel for the
defendant has held that a party should not suffer from the inaction,
deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his agent. However, the facts in
present case show that after becoming aware of the ex parte decree on
18-7-2019, the defendant took no steps against its counsel for more than
14½ months i.e. till 6-10-2020 when a complaint was stated to be filed and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 16 of 19

that too, two weeks prior to the filing of the captioned applications. In the
opinion of this Court, the action taken seems to be only an afterthought
with the aim of filing the present application.
19. Insofar as the delay of 582 days in filing the application is concerned,
the defendant has sought to explain the same by claiming that some
settlement talks were going on between the parties. The defendant has also
relied upon certain medical documents of the son and mother of the
defendant's proprietor.
20. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiffs
strongly denied the claim of any settlement talks. The defendant failed to
put any supporting document in this regard. The defendant's reliance on
the medical documents of the son of the defendant's proprietor is of no use
as the same pertained to the year 2018 i.e. before passing of the decree.
The mother of the defendant's proprietor is also stated to have expired on
20-4-2019. It is noted that the abovementioned events occurred prior to
29-5-2019 and as such, do not provide any justifiable explanation to the
delay of 582 days in filing the application or at least, the delay from
18-7-2019 when the defendant admittedly, became aware of passing of the
ex parte decree.
21. In the opinion of this Court, the defendant has failed to show any
“sufficient cause” for its absence in the Court on the material dates. The
defendant has also failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 582 days in
filing the captioned application. The explanation given by the defendant is
only an eyewash.
22. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to accept the explanation
provided by the defendant. Consequently, the captioned applications are
dismissed.”

22. There can be no quarrel on the proposition of law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon by counsel for the Defendant
that a party should not suffer for the inaction or deliberate omission or
negligence of an advocate, however, these judgments do not aid the
Defendant in the absence of any material establishing the engagement of the
counsel named in the applications, post-receipt of summons and assuming
that Mr. Jati Ram was engaged, there is no material which even remotely
establishes the alleged negligence. The ex parte order was passed on
02.09.2024 and was available on the website of this Court and yet no steps
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 17 of 19

were taken to file an application to set aside the order or to join the
proceedings thereafter and in these circumstances, the Court rightly decreed
the suit on 25.10.2024. The factum of arrest of the husband of the
Chairperson of the school, pleaded as one of the reasons for not following
up the case closely, is also of no consequence as the arrest was on
30.11.2024. The assertion that Defendant learnt of the decree only on
14.02.2024 when Local Commissioner visited the premises is also
unbelievable and palpably false since the judgement was on the website and
thus available in public domain.
23. The Supreme Court in A. Murugesan v. Jamuna Rani, (2019) 20
SCC 803, held that unless ‘sufficient cause’ is shown for non-appearance of
the Defendant on the date of hearing, Court has no power to set aside the
ex parte decree and this judgement fully applies in this case as Defendant is
unable to make out a case of sufficient cause. In fact, the instant case is a
classic case of an indolent litigant who has failed the test of vigilance in
prosecuting its defence and has adopted the usual course of putting the
blame on a counsel, whose engagement is also unsubstantiated. The maxim
vigilantibus et non dormeintibus jura subveniunt i.e., law assists those who
are vigilant and not those who are indolent, applies with full force in the
present case. Defendant is not some rustic illiterate person, who is unaware
of his rights, but a large educational institution with literate people running
the school, who ought to have diligently defended the case once the
summons were received.
24. Judgments cited on behalf of the Defendant are distinguishable. In
Dwarika Prasad (supra), the Defendant was an uneducated, naïve and aged
person unaware of and unable to understand Court proceedings. Judgment in
Raghu Raj (supra) is also distinguishable as in the said case, the reason for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 18 of 19

setting aside the order was that name of the counsel was mentioned on the
next page due to which listing of the matter escaped the attention of the
counsel and he could not appear and the appeal was dismissed for
non-prosecution. Further, the Court observed that after an appeal is
admitted, it can only be decided on merits and not dismissed for non-
prosecution. In Rafiq (supra), the Supreme Court set aside the ex parte
order on the ground that party should not suffer for inaction or deliberate
omission of the agent, whereas in the present case, Defendant concedes
service of summons but is unable to substantiate even the engagement of the
counsel.
25. I.A. 12419/2025 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 196 days
delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and the grounds
are identical in both the applications viz. negligence of the counsel and the
Defendant was unaware of decree until the Local Commissioner visited its
premises. Defendant is unable to make out a case for condonation of delay
sans proof of engagement of the counsel named in the application and
moreover, the judgement was available on the website and it was the duty of
the Defendant to defend the suit diligently and keep itself updated with the
case status, which it failed to do.
26. Both applications are accordingly dismissed, being bereft of merit.



JYOTI SINGH, J.
NOVEMBER 03 , 2026 /YA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
23:12:12
CS(COMM) 46/2024 Page 19 of 19