DELHI HIGH COURT REFUSES TO CONDON DELAY OF 1,028 DAYS IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL

FACT OF CASE

The case involves an appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Sections 96 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging an ex-parte judgment delivered by a District Commercial Court. The respondent, a travel company operating an online booking platform for hotels and related services, had filed a suit for recovery of an outstanding amount of ₹8,86,660 against the appellant, also a travel agency and a registered member of the respondent’s online portal.

According to the respondent, the appellant had availed certain travel inventories and failed to make full payment despite repeated follow-ups and a legal notice. When the appellant did not appear before the trial court despite multiple service attempts, the court proceeded ex-parte and decreed the suit in the respondent’s favour, awarding interest and litigation costs.
The appellants later moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree but failed to comply with cost orders or pursue the matter diligently. Consequently, the decree holder initiated execution proceedings, where the appellants made a partial payment of ₹1 lakh. The appellants then filed the present appeal, seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment and for condonation of a delay of 1,028 days in filing the appeal.

ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

The principal issue before the High Court was whether such an extraordinary delay of 1,028 days in filing an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 could be condoned, given the appellants’ conduct throughout the proceedings.

EXPLANATION OF COMPLEX TERMS

• 1. Ex-parte Judgment: A decision made by the court when one party fails to appear or contest the case, leading to a ruling based solely on the evidence of the appearing party.
• 2. Order IX Rule 13 CPC: A provision that allows a defendant to apply for setting aside an ex-parte decree if they can show valid reasons for their non-appearance.
• 3. Condonation of Delay: A legal mechanism allowing courts to excuse a delay in filing appeals or applications, provided sufficient cause is shown.
• 4. Pendente Lite Interest: Interest awarded for the period during which a case is pending before the court.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

The appellants argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond their control and sought condonation of the delay in the interest of justice. They contended that they were not properly served during the original proceedings and that their absence was unintentional. The appellants further claimed that they had made a partial payment of ₹1 lakh during the execution proceedings, indicating their willingness to settle the matter, and requested that the ex-parte decree be set aside.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

The respondent opposed the appeal, asserting that the appellants were well aware of the proceedings and had deliberately avoided service to delay the matter. The respondent emphasized that several notices and summonses were either refused or returned with remarks indicating evasion. The respondent also noted that the appellants had failed to deposit costs imposed by the lower court, did not pursue their earlier applications, and had no valid justification for the inordinate delay of over one thousand days.

RELEVANT CASE LAW & LAW DISCUSSION

The court referred to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates that appeals must be filed within 60 days from the date of judgment. It also relied on a recent decision in Delco Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Intec Capital Ltd. & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2158, where it was held that delays in filing appeals in commercial matters cannot be condoned unless a genuine and sufficient cause is shown. The ruling underscored the need for strict adherence to timelines in commercial litigation to maintain judicial efficiency and commercial certainty.

COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

The High Court noted several lapses on the part of the appellants:

• 1. They failed to file a written statement in the original suit.
• 2. They did not appear to cross-examine witnesses.
• 3. They avoided service and did not respond to summonses.
• 4. Their application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed belatedly and not pursued diligently.
• 5. They ignored the cost orders and failed to demonstrate bona fide reasons for delay.
• 6. The court emphasized that the appellants’ conduct reflected negligence and a lack of due diligence rather than unavoidable circumstances. In commercial disputes, the court reiterated, parties are expected to act promptly and responsibly, given the statutory time limits.

COURT DIRECTIONS / JUDGMENT

The High Court held that the appellants had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the 1,028-day delay. The delay was deemed inexcusable and contrary to the objectives of the Commercial Courts Act, which aims for expeditious resolution of disputes. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and all pending applications, upholding the ex-parte decree passed by the District Commercial Court.

DATE OF DECISION

26TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

CASE NUMBER

RFA(COMM) 561/2025