Delhi High Court – Orders
Raj Kumar Jain Since Deceased Through … vs Jain Spun Pipe Industries on 19 February, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 126/2024
RAJ KUMAR JAIN SINCE
DECEASED THROUGH LRS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Mishra and Mr. Satpal
Kadiyan, Advocates.
versus
JAIN SPUN PIPE INDUSTRIES .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pran Krishna Jain, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 19.02.2026
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.02.2024
passed by the learned District Judge/COMM-02 (West), Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi, in Misc. DJ No. 127/2022.
Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the application
under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC along with the
application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, thereby declining restoration of
the suit which was dismissed in default on 30.11.2021.
2. Briefly stated, the background facts are that the father of the
appellants was doing the business of manufacturing, trading and dealing in
RRC pipes under the name and style of “M/s. Jain Spun Pipe Co.” and had
filed the underlying suit for permanent injunction for infringement of trade
mark and passing off, acts of unfair competition, counterfeiting, and
damages, against the respondent.
3. On being served with summons in the suit, the respondent appeared
and filed its written statement as well as the reply to the application under
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:34:39
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, and the said application came to be dismissed
on 27.02.2021. Thereafter, the matter was listed for admission/denial,
settlement of issues and case management; however, due to the second wave
of the Covid-19 pandemic, the case was adjourned en bloc and taken up next
on 10.08.2021.
On 10.09.2021, learned counsel for the plaintiff informed the Court
that the plaintiff as well as his wife had expired and sought time to contact
the son of the plaintiff and move the appropriate application. However, on
the next date of hearing, i.e., 30.11.2021, none appeared on behalf of the
plaintiff, and the Trial Court dismissed the suit in default.
4. An application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC seeking restoration of the
suit was moved, wherein the learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that he
was otherwise engaged in Rohini Courts on 30.11.2021 and, despite his best
efforts, had remained unsuccessful in his attempts to join the proceedings
through V.C. He further submitted that he had telephonically contacted the
learned opposing counsel, informed them that he had not been successful in
his attempts to contact the legal heirs of the plaintiff, and accordingly
requested them to ask for an adjournment. On 25.02.2022, learned counsel
received a call from the deceased plaintiff‟s son, Sh. Ashu Jain, from West
Bengal and it was only thereafter that the counsel checked the status of the
case online and came to know of the dismissal, leading to the filing of the
subject applications for restoration and substitution of legal heirs on
16.03.2022 and 04.03.2022 respectively.
5. The subject applications were opposed by the respondent, contending
that the facts laid bare acts of negligence which could not be condoned. It
was further stated that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the
respondent as the plaintiff‟s application for interim injunction had already
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:34:39
been dismissed.
6. The Trial Court dismissed the subject applications, observing that
although it had been claimed that the son of the plaintiff resided in West
Bengal, no documents to support the said claim had been placed on record.
It was further held that the restoration application had been filed under the
signatures of only the son, Sh. Ashu Jain, even though the deceased was also
survived by a daughter, Smt. Ruchika Jain. The Trial Court observed that
even the application under Order XXII Rule 3 had not been signed by the
daughter and there was no document on record to show that the son had
been authorised by his sister to file the subject applications or appear on her
behalf. The Trial Court also highlighted that the limitation periods for
applications under Order XXII Rule 3 and Order IX Rule 9 CPC are 90 days
and 30 days respectively. Highlighting the negligent conduct of the learned
counsel, the Trial Court observed that even if the counsel had been unable to
contact the legal heirs, he was expected to inform the Court and seek further
time. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the subject applications.
7. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing
the impugned order, contends that on the date of dismissal, he was engaged
before Rohini Courts and could not be physically present, and had
specifically requested the counsel for the respondent to seek an
adjournment. He further contends that despite his best efforts, he could not
contact the legal heirs until 25.02.2022 as the plaintiff‟s son was residing in
West Bengal. He submits that the Aadhaar Card of Sh. Ashu Jain and a No-
objection certificate from the plaintiff‟s daughter, Smt. Shweta Jain
(incorrectly referred to as Smt. Ruchika Jain in the impugned order) have
been placed on record.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:34:39
order and submits that the appellants have failed to show any reason to
interfere with the well-reasoned findings of the Trial Court, and the
negligence on the part of the appellants and their counsel ought not to be
condoned.
9. In light of the rival contentions, a gainful reference may be made to
the settled legal position regarding the construction of “sufficient cause”.
The Supreme Court in G.P. Srivastava Vs. R.K. Raizada & Ors.1, held as
follows:-
“7. … The words ‘was prevented by any sufficient cause from
appearing’ must be liberally construed to enable the court to do complete
justice between the parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is
imputable to the erring party. …”
10. Another gainful reference may be made to the decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sukhinder Singh & Ors. Vs. Gurbux Singh
& Ors.2, wherein it was held as under:-
“32. Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code, reads as under:
‘R. 9. Decree against plaintiff by defaults bars fresh suit–(1)
Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under 8, the plaintiff shall
be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of
action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if
he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-
appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall
make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs
or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding
with the suit.
(2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the
application has been served on the opposite party.’
33. The order of dismissal may be set aside if sufficient cause for
nonappearance is shown to the satisfaction of the Court. The words
‘sufficient cause’ have got to be construed with regard to facts and
circumstances of each case.
34. Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag v. Mst.
1
(2000) 3 SCC 54
2
2009 SCC OnLine Del 2588
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:34:39
Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 : AIR 1987 SC 1353, while interpreting the
meaning of the words ‘sufficient cause’ held:
‘The expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the Legislature is
adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a
meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice–that being
the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is
common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably
liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court.'”
11. Applying the aforementioned principles to the facts of the present
case, it is observed on a perusal of the death certificates on record that the
mother of the appellants passed away on 13.05.2021, and their father passed
away shortly thereafter on 09.06.2021. Both parents died at medical
institutes in quick succession during a period of significant turmoil,
coinciding with the „second wave‟ of the Covid-19 pandemic.
12. Furthermore, it has been specifically claimed in the restoration
application that the appellants did not have knowledge about the pendency
of the underlying suit at the relevant time. Given the extraordinary
circumstances prevailing at the time of the deaths and the fact that the
deceased plaintiff’s son was residing in West Bengal, the question of
limitation must be viewed in light of the date of such knowledge.
13. The Aadhaar Card of the plaintiff‟s son, Sh. Ashu Jain, confirming
the fact of his residence in West Bengal, has been placed on record.
Additionally, a No-objection certificate from the plaintiff‟s daughter, Smt.
Shweta Jain, renouncing her rights qua the underlying suit in favour of her
brother, has also been filed. The deficiencies noted by the Trial Court in this
regard thus stand addressed. Parenthetically, it may be noted that the
Surviving Member Certificate issued by the Revenue Department, Govt. of
NCT of Delhi, confirms the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff to be “Sh.
Ashu Jain” and “Smt. Shweta Jain”; however, the daughter has been
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:34:39
incorrectly referred to as “Smt. Ruchika Jain” in the impugned order.
14. The efforts of the counsel to establish contact with the legal heirs of
the plaintiff, his communication with the counsel for the respondent
regarding his inability to reach them, his attempt to join the Court
proceedings through V.C., and his specific request to the opposing counsel
to seek an adjournment, all reflect a bona fide intention to continue with the
suit.
15. In view of the circumstances following the death of the original
plaintiff and the prompt filing of the applications once contact was finally
established with the legal heirs, this Court is of the considered view that
“sufficient cause” as contemplated under Order IX Rule 9 CPC is made out
in the facts of the present case. A hyper-technical approach in such matters
would defeat the very purpose of the provision, which is to ensure that
substantive justice is not sacrificed at the altar of procedural rigour.
16. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is
hereby set aside. The application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC is allowed and
the underlying suit stands restored. The application under Order XXII Rule
3 CPC is also allowed, and Sh. Ashu Jain is directed to be substituted in
place of the deceased plaintiff. The parties shall appear before the concerned
Trial Court on 19.03.2026.
17. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
18. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Trial Court.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2026
nb
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:34:39