Satjit Singh Walia v. Runwell Industries Private Ltd.

$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26th, August, 2025 + CM(M) 1616/2025 & CM APPL. 53000/2025 & CM APPL. 53001/2025 SATJIT SINGH WALIA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Dalvinder Singh, Advocate.

versus RUNWELL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD.

.....Respondent Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1.

Petitioner is defendant before the learned Trial Court and is aggrieved by order dated 16.05.2024 whereby his application moved under Section 151 CPC as well as under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2.

According to petitioner, there was concealment of facts in the plaint and, therefore, there is no point in continuing with the abovesaid suit. 3.

Fact, however, remains that even if there is concealment of facts, that by itself would not become ground for rejection of the suit. 4.

The other ground taken by the petitioner herein is that the suit is barred by limitation and such aspect has not been dealt with by the learned Trial Court in desired manner.

5.

Fact, however, remains that the impugned order is dated 16.05.2024 and it has not been explained as to why there is delay of more than one year in filing the present petition. Though, there is no prescribed period of limitation CM(M) 1616/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA 19:46:46

for invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, fact remains that any such litigant should invoke supervisory jurisdiction without any unnecessary delay.

6.

When asked, learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, submitted that the issues have been framed and the case is at the stage of trial. 7.

He also admits that the learned Trial Court has already framed an issue with respect to limitation.

8.

In view of the above, this Court, at this juncture, does not deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order, particularly, when the learned Trial Court has already framed specific issue with respect to the limitation.

9.

The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. 10.

The pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. 11.

However, the present order would not influence the mind of the Court and the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to decide the issues, including the one related to limitation, without being influenced by any of the observations appearing in the present order.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE AUGUST 26, 2025/ss/pb CM(M) 1616/2025 2 By:DINESH CHANDRA 19:46:46