LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rishi Raj Sharma vs. Ramesh Lata

Civil Miscellaneous (Main) Petition · 2026:DHC:8010Decided 18 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
CM(M) 1819/2026CNR: DLHC010382692026
Justice Ajay Digpaul

Background

The respondent-landlady had sued the petitioner-tenant in a summary suit for recovery of rent arrears of about Rs. 5,24,667/-. The petitioner entered his appearance three days after the 10-day deadline fixed by law for summary suits, and did not tell the other side about it either. Because of this, the trial court held the tenant had defaulted and that the landlady was entitled to a decree without a full hearing on the merits. The tenant then asked the trial court to excuse the three-day delay and recall that order, explaining he was elderly, unwell (hypertension and memory-related illness), and had been confused about the actual date he was served the summons; the trial court refused, so he approached the High Court.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court held that condoning delay in entering appearance under Order XXXVII CPC is a matter of judicial discretion, and the length of the delay (here, just three days) matters far less than whether the explanation for it is honest and not a delaying tactic. The Court found the tenant's explanation, a genuine mix-up over the exact date of service, plausible and not shown to be made in bad faith, even though his supporting medical documents were dated and incomplete. It distinguished the trial court's finding of "mala fides" as relating to the tenant's later conduct (not replying promptly, not participating in some hearings) rather than to the original three-day delay itself. The Court set aside both the trial court's refusal to condone the delay and its earlier order treating the landlady as entitled to a decree, allowing the tenant to file his defence, but only after paying Rs. 10,000/- in costs to compensate the landlady for the delay caused.

Lesson Learnt

Even a short delay in responding to a summary suit can nearly cost a person their right to defend themselves in court. Even so, courts will usually give a genuine, honestly-explained short delay the benefit of the doubt rather than shutting the door entirely, especially when doing so avoids a decree being passed without a hearing on the actual merits.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case