G.S. Gulati v. Avinder Pal Singh CMP(M) No.2297 of 2025 in CMPMO No.560 of 2019 11.09.2026 Present: Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate, for the applicant/respondent. Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for the non- applicant/petitioner. By way of this application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a prayer has been made for recalling ex-parte order dated 18.08.2023 and also for condonation of delay in filing the application for recall of the order. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the petition was disposed of on 18.08.2025 and the applicant was proceeded against ex-parte as no appearance was put on behalf of the applicant before the Cout. He submitted that the name of the learned counsel was not reflected in the cause list despite the fact that Vakalatnama already stood filed with the Registry. Learned counsel also pointed out that in terms of order dated 28.12.2019, the Court had directed the Registry to reflect the name of the learned counsel in the cause list, yet the name was not reflected. Accordingly, he submitted that as the non- appearance on behalf of the applicant on the date concerned was bona fide and not intentional, the ex-parte order be recalled and delay in filing application be condoned. He submitted that the delay in filing the application was also bona fide, because, the applicant was under the bona fide belief that the matter had not yet been decided and it was only later on when he gained the knowledge that the matter stood decided ex-parte, immediately the application was filed for recall of the order along with the prayer for condoning the delay. Reply to the application has not been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that in the light of the fact that the contention of the applicant is borne out from the record itself, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, appropriate orders are passed on the application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record and also the contents of the application, as it is evident that Vakalatnama was duly filed on behalf of the applicant and earlier appearance was also being put in on behalf of the applicant in the proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that as the non- appearance on the date when the matter was decided ex-parte, was on account of the fact that the name of the learned counsel for the applicant was not reflected in the cause list for the respondent therein, the non-appearance on said count was bona fide. Learned counsel had done his duty by filing the Vakalatnama, which is also evident from the first order passed in the main petition in which a direction was issued by the Court to the Registry to reflect the name of the learned counsel in the cause list. Thereafter, it was the duty of the Registry to have had reflected the name of the learned counsel in the cause list. The omission on the part of the Registry cannot act to the prejudice of the applicant. Therefore, in these circumstances, as this Court is satisfied that the non-appearance in the Court on behalf of the applicant on the date when ex-parte order was passed, was bona fide and not intentional and further as this Court is also satisfied that delay in filing the application is also bona fide, the application is allowed as prayed for. Ex-parte order dated 18.08.2025 is recalled. Delay in filing the application is condoned. CMPMO No.560 of 2019 Registry is directed to restore CMPMO No. 560 of 2019 to its original number and thereafter, the matter be listed for consideration before the appropriate Bench. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 11, 2026 (Vinod)