* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5 • + CM(M) 16/2010 & CM.NOS. 156/2010 (for stay) & 157/2010 (for direction) DEWANG BARODIA Petitioner Through: Mr. Sidharth Joshi with ,Mr. Shubhankar Jha, Advocates versus SHYAM SUNDER ARORA Respondent Through: None C_: WITH + CM(M) 17/2010 & CM.Nos.159/2010 (for stay) & 160/2010 (u/S.151 CPC) DEWANG BARODIA Petitioner Through: Mr. Sidharth Joshi with Mr. Shubhankar Jlia, Advocates versus SWATI ARORA Respondent Through: None CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR ORDER % 20.04.2010 1. The challengein CM(M) 16/2010is to an order dated 27^ November 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) Delhi dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner herein (the Defendant in Civil Suit No.91/2009) under Order 37 read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree against the Petitioner/Defendant in Civil Suit No. 91 of 2009. 2. CM (M) 17/2010 is directed against an order dated November CM(M) 16/2010 & 17/2010 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) Delhi dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner/Defendant under Order 37 read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for .setting aside ex parte decreed against him in Civil Suit No. 92 of 2009. 3. It may be mentioned herein that Civil Suit No. 91 of 2009 was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff Shyam Sunder Arora against the Petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs together with interest. Civil Suit No. 92 of 2009 was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff Swati Arora for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs together with interest from the Petitioner herein. 4. The groimd taken in the application under Order 37 CPC was that the service report of the process server showing that the Petitioner/Defendant in each case had been served was incorrect. This was rejected by the impugned orders. 5. At the first hearing in this case on 8^ January 2010 the following orders were passed in these cases by this Court: "C.M. AdpI. No. 158/2010 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of CM. (M) No. 16/2010 and C.M. AppI. Nos.156- 157/2010 Issue notice of the petition to the respondent, subject to deposit of principal amount as claimed in the suit, i.e, Rs.l8 lac within one week in the court, returnable for 20th CM(I\/I)16/2010 &17/2010 Page 2 of 3 April, 2010. On deposit of the amount in the court, the executionofthe decr|eeshallremainstayed. C.M. ApdI. No. 161/2010 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of C.M. (M) No.17/2010 and C.M. AppI. Nos.159- 160/2010 Issue notice of the petition to the respondent, subject to deposit of principal amount as claimed in the suit, i.e, Rs.6 lac within one week in the court, returnable for 20th April, 2010. On deposit of the amount in the court, the execution of the decree shall remain stayed." 6. Thereafter,despiteextensionof time grantedinitiallytill 31®^ January 2010 by an order dated 15^^ January2010 and later till 30^^^ March2010 by an orderdated 2^^ February2010,the Petitionerhas not depositedthe principal amoimt claimed in the suit. Today, further time is sought for tlie purpose. This Court does not find this request to be reasonable. Accordingly, since the issuance of notice was subject to the deposit of the decretal amount, the notice is discharged. 7. The petitions are dismissed as being without merit. The pending applications are also stands dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J APRIL 20, 2010 ps CM(M) 16/2010&17/2010 . Page3jDf3