Sunil Rustagi v. Siddharht Jain and Ors

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MAY 11, 2026 pmc

Pg. 1 of 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11.05.2026 + SUNIL RUSTAGI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Garima Verma, Mr. Nikhil Goel, Ms. Arshia, Mr. Ujjwal and Mr. Vijay, Advocates. Versus SIDDHARHT JAIN AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harshit Vashisht, Mr. Shivdeep Kr., Ms. Bhavini Kapoor, and Mr. Shartak Tagra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGEMNT (ORAL) CM APPL. 31534/2026 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The present application is disposed of. CM APPL. 31532/2026 (delay) 1. By way of the present application, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 50 days in refiling the accompanying appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 50 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. Pg. 2 of 8 FAO 156/2026 & CM APPL. 31533/2026 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned DJ-04, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Misc. DJ No. 314/2024, whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed, the appellant/defendant no. 4 has preferred this appeal seeking the setting aside of the same. 2. It is contended that the impugned order fails to take into account that the appellant was never served in the underlying suit, and that the Trial Court misapplied the provisions of Order V Rule 20 CPC inasmuch as no affixation was carried out at the appellant"s premises. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents seeks dismissal of the present appeal by contending that the Trial Court committed no error when it reached to the conclusion that the appellant could not be served and was rather avoiding service, pursuant to which substituted service by way of publication in a local newspaper was duly carried out. Further, it is contended that the appellant has not categorically stated as to how and when he became aware of the passing of the ex-parte judgment, which bars the filing of the subject application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 5. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and prayed for the concerned Agreement to Sell/Bayana to be declared valid and enforceable. He further sought a direction to the defendants to execute the sale documents in respect of the suit property as well as to hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiff. Additionally, the relief of permanent injunction was also sought to Pg. 3 of 8 the extent that the defendants be directed to not create any third-party rights. 6. It was averred that defendant no. 6, who had been known to the plaintiff for a long time, approached him in the month of December 2007, stating that his relative, i.e. defendant no. 1, owned a plot measuring 60 meters bearing no. 328, Pocket-9, Sector 21, Rohini, Delhi – 110085, which he intended to sell. Since defendant no. 1 was residing in Kolkata, the plaintiff spoke to him telephonically, whereupon defendant no. 1 agreed to sell the said plot. He further informed the plaintiff that he jointly owned the plot with his late wife, Smt. Vidya Devi, and that all his four sons had relinquished their shares in his favour. He further informed that he had also executed a Power of Attorney in favour of defendant no. 6. 7. Notably, on 16.12.2007, defendant no. 6, on behalf of defendant no. 1, executed the Agreement to Sell/Bayana and received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff towards earnest money. The total negotiated amount was Rs.41,21,000/-. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop of facts, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking reliefs of specific performance, declaration, and permanent injunction before this Court. However, later on the suit was transferred to the Trial Court concerned on account of a ch