GARDENIA INDIA LTD Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dtd. 25/9/2019 passed by the learned District Judge-04, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') in Civil Suit bearing no. 662/2017, titled as 'Dr. Rakesh Kumar HUF vs. M/s Gardenia India Ltd. and Ors.' wherein the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') for setting aside the ex-parte order dtd. 6/12/2018. Thus, the present petition has been preferred invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Mr. Amit Bhatia, the learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is a body corporate and petitioner no.2 is the chairman of petitioner no.1 who have been impleaded as defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit filed by the respondent seeking recovery of Rs.40,60,000.00 with pendente lite and future interest. Further, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma is the Managing Director of petitioner no. 1 company and defendant no. 2 in the suit before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant no. 2'). The learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 11/8/2017 had issued summons of the suit and notice of the interim application against the petitioners returnable on 26/9/2017. However, on the said date of hearing, summons were issued afresh to petitioner nos.1 and 2 on filing of PF/RC returnable on 29/1/2018. As per the report appended by the Ahlmad on 27/1/2018, it has been stated that the 'steps were not taken' for 29/1/2018.

(3.) The learned counsel also submitted that from 29/1/2018 till 6/12/2018, fresh summons were not ordered to be served upon petitioner nos.1 and 2 as the respondent and his counsel kept taking adjournments on one pretext or the other.