Delhi High Court
C.R.P./282/2026 of UDIT VERMA HUF Vs HEMANT MANN on 18 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010446542026 + C.R.P. 282/2026 & CM APPL. 64327/2026 CM APPL. 64328/2026 UDIT VERMA HUF .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M Sufian Siddiqui, Mr. Rakesh Bhugra, Mr. Niyazuddin, Mr. Mazhar Ahmed, Mr. Mohd. Saif, Advocates. versus HEMANT MANN
$~51
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010446542026
+
C.R.P. 282/2026 & CM APPL. 64327/2026 CM APPL. 64328/2026
UDIT VERMA HUF
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. M Sufian Siddiqui, Mr. Rakesh
Bhugra, Mr. Niyazuddin, Mr. Mazhar
Ahmed, Mr. Mohd. Saif, Advocates.
versus
HEMANT MANN
.....Respondent
Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
18.09.2026
1. This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14th September 2026 passed by the District Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS DJ No. 780/2025, whereby the application seeking leave to defend filed by the defendant in a suit instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), was allowed. The application for leave to defend was filed with a delay of 36 days, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of the said delay.
2. Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui, counsel for the petitioner, contends that despite having brought to attention of the Trial Court the parameters under which sufficient cause has to be sustained and established by the defendant explaining the delay, particularly in suits under Order XXXVII of CPC, the Trial Court has passed a perfunctory order without undertaking the requisite assessment.
3. Reliance was placed by counsel for plaintiff/petitioner, inter alia, on decisions of the Single Judge of this Court in Loveneet Singh & Ors. v. Neeraj Sama 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3208, as well as Tropical Industries International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Vitthal Cashew Industries & Anr. 2026 SCC OnLine Del 454.
4. In Tropical Industries (supra), this Court has examined the relevant legal principles in detail governing condonation of delay and assessment of sufficient cause in summary suits. The Court has categorically noted that condonation of delay ought not to be given as a matter of generosity, but as an exception, and the Court has to consider the genuineness of reasons furnished by a party seeking condonation of delay.
5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no such assessment has been undertaken by the Trial Court.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration of the application seeking condonation of delay filed in support of the application for leave to defend. The said application shall be considered by the Trial Court in light of the principles of law enunciated in Tropical Industries (supra).
7. List before the Trial Court on 28th September 2026.
8. Petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, are rendered infructuous.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, and the Trial Court shall be at liberty to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.
11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2026/ak/bp