Litigant Cannot Plead Ignorance Of Case Status When Court Orders Are Available Online; Failure To Follow Up Shows Lack Of Diligence: Delhi High Court

The Bench noted that an appellant who personally appeared after service of summons must be aware of online facilities; running proprietorship firm and concerned about CIBIL score, presumed capable of protecting his interests.

Update: 2026-10-18 13:30 GMT

The Delhi High Court has observed that, in today’s age of the internet, where online case status, video-conferencing facilities for appearance in Courts and the uploading of order sheets and judgments on Court websites have been provided for the convenience of litigants, litigants are in a better position to follow up their case. The Court held that, in this setting, the plea of a defendant that he could not access the Court website to ascertain the status of his case was difficult to believe.

The Court noted that the appellant, after service of summons, had personally appeared before the Trial Court without his counsel, and must therefore be aware of these facilities. Considering that he ran his own proprietorship firm and was concerned about his CIBIL score, the Court said he could be presumed capable of protecting his interests. It also rejected his argument that he was apprehensive of approaching a Computer Service Centre because knowledge of the litigation would affect his CIBIL score. Since he exercised neither option, the Court held, he was not diligent in pursuing the case against him.

A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary observed, “In today’s age of the internet where the online case status, videoconferencing facilities for appearance in Courts and uploading of order sheets and judgments on the website of the Courts have been provided for the convenience of litigants, the litigants are in a better position to follow up their case. Where after the service of summons, the appellant himself had personally appeared in the Trial Court without his counsel, he must definitely be aware about the availability of the above facilities. Considering that the appellant was running his own proprietorship firm and was concerned about his CIBIL score, he can be presumed to be capable of protecting his interests and the argument that he could not access the Court website to ascertain the status of the case is difficult to believe. Also the argument that even if he could do so, he was apprehensive to approach a Computer Service Centre because the knowledge of the litigation would affect his CIBIL score, cannot be accepted. As has been rightly observed by the learned Trial Court the appellant exercised neither of the above options, only showing that he was not diligent in pursuing the case against him…”.

Advocate Neeraj Kumar Singh appeared for the appellant and Advocate Sarthak Ahuja appeared for the respondent.

The respondent, a supplier of fertilisers and agricultural products, sued the appellant for recovery of Rs. 12,24,939 with interest and costs for goods supplied on credit. The appellant appeared in person on January 25, 2024, having received summons on January 22, 2024, but filed no written statement within thirty days, and his right to do so was closed. Evidence was recorded by a Local Commissioner without the appellant cross-examining the witnesses. An ex-parte judgment was pronounced on November 26, 2024.

The appellant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on January 20, 2025, blaming his counsel for not answering calls or informing him of hearings. The District Judge (Commercial Court), North District, Rohini, dismissed it on August 07, 2025, holding that he could have checked the Court website, approached a Computer Service Centre, or visited the Court. The appellant challenged this under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Applying precedents, the Court asked whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to be present and did his best to do so.

Referring to Salil Duttav v. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 185, Rajneesh Kumar and Another v. Ved Prakash 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3380 and Nitin Mahadeo Jawale and others v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3468, it held that a litigant cannot disown his advocate at any time and must remain vigilant even if the lawyer is negligent.

“The claim of the appellant qua the negligence of his counsel in not informing him about the matter and not answering his calls when he was calling her to ascertain the status of the case, is too vague and devoid of material particulars, to be accepted as a sufficient cause for his nonappearance. There is no satisfactory explanation whatsoever provided by the appellant for him to be unable to have approached the Trial Court for determining the status of his case where he was not able to get in touch with his Counsel…”, the Bench noted.

The Court found no mention of when he tried to contact counsel, and no explanation for his absence on November 23 and 26, 2024, or for how he learnt of the judgment. His plea that he feared an adverse CIBIL score if he approached a Computer Service Centre was rejected. Kalu Ram Dhingra was followed.