$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 2 • + CM (M) NO. 1184/2009 M/S A. KUMAR TRADING CO PVT.LTD Petitioner Tlirougli: Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocate. versus M/S BHARTIYA JEEVAN DHARA ENTERPRISES ANR. Respondents Tlirough: Mr. J. Sarma, Advocate for R-1 & 2. 3 CM (M) NO. 1214/2009 ASHOK KUMAR Petitioner Tlirough: Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocate. versus M/S BHARTIYA JEEVAN DHARA ENTERPRISES ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. J. Sarma, Advocate for R-1 &2. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR ORDER % 26.05.2010 1. The common issue in these cases has been encapsulated in the orderdated27^^October2009 passedin CM (M)No. 1184/2009which reads as under:- "This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order of the Trial court allowing the application of the respondents/defendant before the Trail Court under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. The impugned order does not give any reason whatsoever for setting aside of the decree. The making of a decree vests important right in the plaintiff and which ought not to be interfered with lightly and in a casual manner as done in the order impugned in this petition. WP(CMI) No. 1184/2009 Paaelnf? 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 > t J j Issue notice to the respondents by all modes including dasti on the petitioner taking requisite steps, returnableon 15^February2010." 2. Counsel for the parties have been heard. It does appear to the Court that the defendant ought to have been subjected to more onerous conditions, in the facts and circumstances of the case, for the settingasideofthe ex-partejudgmentdated 19^August2008. 3. Accordingly, it is directed that subject to the defendant paying to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.20,000/- as costs in each case within a period of four weeks, and placing on the record of the trial court the proof of paymentof such costs, the ex-partejudgmentdated 19^August2008 would stand set aside as ordered by the learned Additional Disti-ict Judgebythe impugnedorderdated28^August2009. 4. The petitions are disposed of S.MURALIDHAR, J. MAY 26 2010 'ss' WPfCMI) No. 1184/2009 Paqe 2 of 2