Scientific E Resources Sole Proprietorship Of Mr Rajan Jain Through Its Authorized Representative Mr A S Negi & Anr. vs Refread Solutions Private Limited & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~O-30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010875782024
+ FAO-IPD 4/2024 and CM 124/2024, CM 30/2025
Date of Decision: 08.10.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. SCIENTIFIC E RESOURCES SOLE
PROPRIETORSHIP OF MR RAJAN
JAIN THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE MR A. S. NEGI
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
4850/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ,
NEW DELHI-110002
2. MR. RAJAN JAIN,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE MR. A.S. NEGI
4850/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ,
NEW DELHI-110002
.....APPELLANTS
( Through: Mr. Udit Chauhan, Mr. Aditya P. Arora and Mr. Kashin
Nagpal, Advocates. )
versus
1. REFREAD SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
S4/U TOWER,
SECTOR 17, GURGAON, HARYANA-INDIA
ALSO AT,
805/20, AZAD NAGAR, ROORKEE,
HARIDWAR-247667
2. MR. VIKAS MADAN S/O SURESH CHANDER MADAN
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
16:05:18
Page 1 of 5
ADDRESS: A-492, FIRST FLOOR,
SECTOR 46, GAUTAM BUDHHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH- 201301
.....RESPONDENTS
( Through: Mr. Anupam Dwivedi, Advocate for R-1. )
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is for the following reliefs:
a. Allow the present Appeal and Set aside the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the Ld.
“
Trial Court in the case bearing M. No. 9 of 2021 titled "Refread Solutions Private
Limited v. Scientific E-Resources & Ors.";
b. Pass an order granting consequential reliefs of setting aside the ex-parte order dated
07.01.2020 and ex-parte Judgement/Decree dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Ld. Court of
Mr. Sachin Sood, District Judge-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Central District, Delhi in the
case bearing M. DJ No. 9 of 2021 titled "Refread Solutions Private Limited v. Scientific
E-Resources & Ors ."
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The appellant herein, who was the defendant before the Trial Court,
has filed the present appeal to challenge the order dated 05.08.2024 passed
by the District Judge-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Central District, Delhi, in the
case bearing M. No. 9/2021, whereby, an application under Order IX Rule
13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the appellant/
defendant came to be rejected.
4. The facts of the case would indicate that the appellant/ defendant was
proceeded ex-parte on 07.01.2020, and, thereafter, an ex-parte judgement
and decree was passed on 13.10.2020.
5. Mr. Udit Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
16:05:18
Page 2 of 5
defendant has criticized the impugned judgement on the various grounds.
According to him, the past conduct of the appellant ought not to have been
considered to be fatal in allowing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) when the appellant was able to
sufficiently show the cause of prevention of its appearance when the matter
was called out.
6. Mr. Chauhan further contends that once the past conduct was
condoned by the Court, the same ought not to have been considered as a
reason to reject the application.
7. Additionally, Mr. Chauhan, submits that in the year 2020-21, there
was COVID-19 Pandemic and resultantly, the parties were not able to
appear before the concerned Court and in view of directions passed by the
Delhi High Court at Original Side, the Trial Courts were requested not to
pass any adverse orders on account of non-appearance.
8. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by Mr. Anupam Dwivedi,
learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1. According to him, the
impugned order is strictly in accordance with the law. He submits that there
is no illegality or irregularity requiring any interference in the instant
proceedings. He submits that if the pleadings in the application under Order
IX Rule 13 of the CPC are perused in right perspective, it would indicate
that except to blame the advocate, the appellant/ defendant has not explained
any reason to establish the sufficiency of the cause of prevention of its
appearance before the concerned Court.
9. Mr. Dwivedi, thus, contends that the Supreme Court has deprecated
the blame game on the advocates, and, therefore, on that ground, no
interference is called for. He has placed reliance on the decision passed by
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
16:05:18
Page 3 of 5
the Supreme Court in the case of Salil Dutta vs. T. M. and M. C. Private
1
Ltd. .
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
11. The provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC clearly indicate that if
the party is not served or is able to sufficiently establish the non-appearance
on the date when the matter was called out, it is entitled to invoke the
provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. The said position has been
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Parimal v. Veena @
2 3
Bharti and G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada .
12. The aforesaid two requirements are mandatory as observed by the
Division bench of this Court in Sudarshan Sareen v. National Small
4
Industries Corporation Ltd. .
13. If the pleadings made by the appellant in the application under Order
IX Rule 13 of the CPC are considered in the right perspective, they would
clearly indicate that the appellant was duly served and had also engaged an
advocate. The application explains that the advocate was not diligent in
pursuing the proceedings and resultantly, the appellant was proceeded ex-
parte and subsequently, ex-parte judgement and decree were passed.
14. The reason of the advocate not diligently pursuing the proceedings
would not be sufficient to allow the application under Order IX Rule 13 of
the CPC. This position has been squarely settled by the Supreme Court in
the case of Salil Dutta (supra).
1
(1993) 2 SCC 185
2
(2011) 3 SCC 545
3
(2000) 3 SCC 54
4
2013 SCC OnLine Del 4412
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
16:05:18
Page 4 of 5
15. Moreover, a perusal of the record reveals that the appellant’s plea of
total unawareness lacks substance, given that an application for recalling an
earlier adverse order was signed by one of the appellants themselves on
30.05.2019. A commercial entity cannot completely abdicate its duty of
keeping track of the judicial proceedings after setting the litigation in motion
and then subsequently attempt to shift the entire burden onto the counsel.
16. Lastly, the submission made by the appellant concerning the
purported effect of the COVID-19 pandemic may be considered. In para. 12
of the application moved by the appellant, under Order IX Rule 13 of the
CPC, the appellant has pleaded that due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the
appellant and his counsel, could not appear or had no knowledge regarding
the proceedings. This excuse, however, does not stand in view of the fact
that the appellant had already been proceeded ex-parte two months prior on
07.01.2020. The onset of the pandemic in March 2020 cannot
retrospectively be an excuse for a default that had already occurred prior to
the lockdown.
17. There was nothing preventing the appellant or its chosen counsel from
tracking the progress of the suit or from seeking appropriate remedies as
well before the pandemic disrupted the court proceedings.
18. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, no interference is
called for. The appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
19. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 8, 2026
aks/An
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
16:05:18
Page 5 of 5