The Delhi High Court has refused to reopen an ex parte commercial decree, finding that vague allegations against a former lawyer did not explain the litigant’s failure to attend crucial hearings.
Judge / Bench — Justice Dinesh Mehta and Dr. Justice Aditi Choudhary; judgment by Dr. Justice Aditi Choudhary.
In Pawan v Amit Gupta, decided on 15 October 2026, the appellant claimed his lawyer had stopped answering calls. He provided no specific dates or adequate explanation for not contacting her personally or checking court records.
The court stressed that relief under Order IX Rule 13 CPC depends on sufficient cause for absence on the relevant hearing dates. Lawyer negligence does not confer automatic immunity from a litigant’s own lack of diligence. The appeal against refusal to set aside the decree was dismissed.
Advocates appearing — For the appellant — Neeraj Kumar Singh and Abhinav Kr. Singh. For the respondent — Sarthak Ahuja and Nitisha Soni.