p. 1 $~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 7/2025 (Disposed of case) THE LAYMENS EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Saxena, Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh, Mr. Amit Verma, Advocates. versus ABHISHEK BUILDCON PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Ms. Soumya S., Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 28.11.2025 CM APPL. 74914/2025 (condonation of delay in filing review petition) 1. By way of the present application, the review petitioner [respondent in the captioned revision petition], seeks condonation of delay of 150 days in filing the captioned review petition. 2. It appears that, after the judgment under review was passed on 28.05.2025, the respondent/review petitioner had filed an application for correction of the said judgment [CM APPL. 51033/2025], which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 20.08.2025. Subsequently, there was a change of counsel, and the present review petition was filed. However, there was a lapse of three months, even after the order dated 20.08.2025. 3. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the delay may be condoned, only subject to payment of costs by the respondent/review 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 01/12/2025 at 14:05:15 p. 2 petitioner. 4. With the consent of Mr. Arun Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist, the delay is hereby condoned, and the application is allowed, subject to the respondent paying costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the revisionist. 5. The application accordingly stands disposed of. REVIEW PET. 591/2025 1. The respondent – Abhishek Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., who is the plaintiff in CS No. 760/2017 before DJ-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, has filed the present review petition, seeking review of the judgment dated 28.05.2025, by which the captioned revision petition was disposed of. 2. The captioned revision petition was preferred against an order dated 26.09.2024, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”]. While considering the said revision petition, the Court observed as follows: “4. The perusal of the Plaint as well as the prayers reflect that the Suit that has been filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff submits that he will be filing appropriate proceedings before the learned Trial Court in view of the objection qua pecuniary jurisdiction that has been taken. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, in view of the aforegoing statement of the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, the present Petition would become infructuous. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks and is granted permission to withdraw the present Petition. 7. The Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The pending Application also stands closed.” 3. It is undisputed that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.09.2024, did 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 01/12/2025 at 14:05:15 p. 3 not pertain to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court. However, subsequent to the judgment under review, the petitioner [defendant in the aforesaid suit] has filed another application under the same provision, this time raising the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction. 4. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent/review petitioner, submits that the observations of this Court in paragraph 4, extracted above, appear to constitute a final finding on this aspect, and that the remarks recorded in paragraph 5 were erroneously made, as there was no occasion for respondent/review petitioner to initiate any proceedings before the Trial Court in this regard. 5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already filed another application before the Trial Court, and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present review petition is disposed of, with the direction that the Trial Court shall consider the application on its own merits. It is clarified that the observation in paragraph 4 of the judgment under review is merely a prima facie observation and shall not preclude the Trial Court from arriving at a final finding in accordance with law. As the petitioner has already filed the application, it is further clarified that the respondent is not required to initiate any additional proceedings in this regard before the Trial Court. 6. The review petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. PRATEEK JALAN, J NOVEMBER 28, 2025/‘Bhupi’/SD/ 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 01/12/2025 at 14:05:15