CR-8663-2025 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 240 CR-8663-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.03.2026 Mayur Dharam Chand Solanki ...Pe55oner(s) Vs. ITC Ltd. and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Deepak Raghav, Advocate for the pe%%oner. Mr. Anil Kher, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Revision Pe%%on under Ar%cle 227 of the Cons%tu%on of India has been 2led by the defendant No.2 against the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Addi%onal District Judge- cum-Presiding Judge Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram; whereby pe%%oner was proceeded against exparte; and order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Addi%onal District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram; whereby applica%on 2led by the pe%%oner for se;ng aside exparte order dated 30.09.2022, has been dismissed. 2. It is inter alia submi<ed by learned counsel for the pe%%oner that plain%=/respondent No.1 had 2led Civil Suit no.89 dated 25.08.2022. It is contended that the pe%%oner was proceeded against ex DIVYANSHI 2026.04.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8663-2025 (O&M) - 2 - parte in the said suit as respondent had deliberately given wrong address of the pe%%oner. Learned counsel submits that in the suit, address of the pe%%oner had been shown as under: - “MAYUR DHARAMCHAND SOLANKI PARTNER M/S SHRI ROYAL CREATIONS RESIDING AT: 228, MOUNT ROAD, MAZGAON, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA – 400010” 3. Whereas in the applica%on dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure P-8) moved by the respondent, the respondent had given correct address of the pe%%oner as follows: - Mr. Mayur Solanki S/o Late Sh. Dharamchand B Solanki RESIDING AT: A-1004, SHATRUNJAY DARSHAN, MOTISHAH CROSS LANE, BYCULLA, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400027 ALSO AT: 4A KARIA ESTATE, GANESH MANDIR LANE, ANJIRWADI, MAZAGAON, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400010 4. Learned counsel submits that in this situa%on, because respondent No.1/plain%= had deliberately given wrong address of the pe%%oner, Service could not be a=ected upon the pe%%oner. Therefore, pe%%oner remained answered. Therefore, pe%%oner could not have been proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.09.2022. DIVYANSHI 2026.04.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8663-2025 (O&M) - 3 - Consequen%ally, dismissal of the pe%%oner’s applica%on vide impugned order dated 30.10.2025, is also not sustainable. 5. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Pe%%on be allowed; and the impugned orders be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1/plain%= vehemently objects to the submissions advanced on behalf of the pe%%oner and submits that an Agreement dated 05.08.2014 had been executed between the pe%%oner and the contes%ng respondent No.1; wherein address of the pe%%oner is duly men%oned as follows:- “MAYUR DHARAMCHAND SOLANKI PARTNER M/S SHRI ROYAL CREATIONS RESIDING AT: 228, MOUNT ROAD, MAZGAON, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA – 400010” 7. A copy of the said Agreement is handed over in Court today and taken on record. A perusal whereof reveals that at page 1 of the said Agreement, address of the pe%%oner, as above is reFected. 8. It is submi<ed that therefore, Service was a=ected upon the pe%%oner at the above said address as men%oned in the Agreement. However, pe%%oner had refused to accept summons. Moreover, pe%%oner is a partner in the defendant no.1-Firm M/s. Shree Royal Crea%ons. The said Firm is contes%ng the Civil Suit since 2022. Therefore, DIVYANSHI 2026.04.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8663-2025 (O&M) - 4 - the pe%%oner being partner of the said Firm, it is impossible that pe%%oner would not be aware of the proceedings. 9. It is also submi<ed by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1/plain%= that the en%re purpose of 2ling a Civil Suit before the Commercial Court shall be rendered nugatory, if the pe%%oner is permi<ed to succeed in his mo%ve of delaying the trial. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Revision Pe%%on. 10. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the par%es. I have heard learned counsel and perused the 2le. I 2nd no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the pe%%oner/defendant No.2. 11. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: - 25.08.2022: Plain%=/respondent No.1 had 2led a Civil Suit (Comm) no.89 dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) for recovery of Rs.1,06,03,030/-, against the defendant No.1/Firm; pe%%oner/defendant No.2; and respondent No.3/defendant No.3-another Partner in the Firm. 25.08.2022: No%ce in the present Suit was issued vide order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) for 30.09.2022. 30.09.2022: Vide order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), pe%%oner/defendant No.2 was proceeded against exparte. 13.02.2025: It is only on 13.02.2025 that the pe%%oner moved instant applica%on (Annexure P-5) under Order IX Rule 7 read with Sec%on 151 CPC for se;ng aside the exparte order dated 30.09.2022. DIVYANSHI 2026.04.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8663-2025 (O&M) - 5 - 11.04.2025: The respondent No.1/plain%= had 2led reply dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) to the said applica%on. 30.10.2025: Vide impugned order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-7), the said applica%on of the pe%%oner was dismissed. 12. The only conten%on raised on behalf of the pe%%oner for se;ng aside the aforesaid impugned orders is that pe%%oner had not been properly served as respondent No.1/plain%= had deliberately given the wrong address of the pe%%oner. However, learned counsel for the pe%%oner has not been able to deny that in the plaint, the address of the pe%%oner is the same as men%oned in the Agreement dated 05.08.2014 i.e. Mayur Dharamchand Solanki R/o 228, Mount Rod, Mazgoan Mumbai, Maharashtra-400010. 13. Pe%%oner has also been unable to dispute that the pe%%oner had refused acceptance of summons, as recorded in the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-4). In this regard, facts as recorded in para 1 of the order dated 30.09.2022 are noted as under: - “Summons were ordered to be sent to defendants through speed post. Postal receipts have been produced. As regards defendant No.2, registered envelope containing summons and copy of plaint has been received back with the remarks "refused". Learned counsel for plain=> has also produced track delivery report wherein remarks "Items Returned Refused" are men=oned. ………” 14. Pe%%oner has also not disputed that the present Civil Suit (Comm) No. 89 of 2022 is 2led against Firm-defendant No.1; pe%%oner- DIVYANSHI 2026.04.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8663-2025 (O&M) - 6 - defendant no.2; and respondent/defendant No.3. Pe%%oner has not disputed that pe%%oner and respondent No.3 our partners of the Firm. Pe%%oner has also not disputed that the defendant No.1-Firm and defendant no.3-Partner are ac%vely pursuing the suit against the plain%=s. Given the above facts, it is highly improbable that the pe%%oner remained unaware of the proceedings of the present Civil Suit No. 89 of 2022. Thus, it would appear that the pe%%oner has deliberately chosen not to put in appearance before the Court. 15. The reliance of the pe%%oner upon the Memo of Par%es of Civil Suit (Comm) No. 43 of 2022 (Annexure P-9) is misleading as therein the pe%%oner had been impleaded as LR of “Dharamchand B Solanki, (Since Deceased), KARTA (HUF) AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, M/S. ROYAL CREATIONS, RESIDING AT: A-1004, SHATRUNJAY DARSHAN, MOTISHAH CROSS LANE, BYCULLA, MUMBAI.”; whereas in the present suit, pe%%oner has been impleaded as a partner in his own right in the Firm/defendant No.1. Merely because address of the pe%%oner is men%oned di=erently in the same city in a separate suit, would not imply that he was not residing at the address men%oned in the plaint of the present Civil Suit (Comm) No. 89 of 2022. Therefore, conten%on of the pe%%oner that the plain%= was aware of the actual address of the applicant, is also misleading since it is not denied by the pe%%oner that in the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 43 of 2022, pe%%oner had duly put in appearance. DIVYANSHI 2026.04.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8663-2025 (O&M) - 7 - 16. In this circumstance, learned Addi%onal District Judge has correctly observed in the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 that “A person can have two addresses in the same city and simply because address of applicant/defendant no. 2 is men=oned di>erently in the same city in a separate suit, it cannot be said that he was not residing at the address of applicant/defendant no. 2 men=oned in the plaint of the present suit. S=ll further, present suit has been @led by the plain=> against defendant no. 1 @rm and its partners. Applicant/defendant no. 2 has not denied that he is a partner in defendant no. 1 @rm. So defendant no. 3 must have informed about the present case to him and discussed the maBer with him since the relief has been sought by plain=> against all the defendants including partnership @rm defendant no. 1, jointly and severally. In these circumstances, court is unable to accept the plea raised on behalf of the applicant/defendant no. 2 that he was not served and the report of refusal endorsed on the registered envelope in which no=ce was issued to him is wrong.” 17. Furthermore, present applica%on has been 2led by the pe%%oner at a highly belated stage as issues already stood framed; evidence of the plain%= stood concluded; and it is when ma<er was 2xed for evidence of the defendants, that the pe%%oner has moved instant applica%on on 13.02.2025. No cogent reasons have been given by the pe%%oner, explaining the said delay in 2ling the present applica%on. DIVYANSHI 2026.04.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8663-2025 (O&M) - 8 - 18. In view of the afore-noted facts, present Revision Pe%%on stands dismissed. 19. Pending applica%on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 27.03.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.04.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document