Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of Case, Factual Background
This case involves a person named Gaurav Khattar who was unhappy with a court decision against him and tried to get it changed through a review process. The original issue started from a money dispute where Virender Aggarwal claimed that Gaurav Khattar owed him money based on some checks that bounced. A lower court had ruled in favor of Virender Aggarwal back in 2016 without Gaurav Khattar showing up, because the court believed he had been properly notified through his father. Years later, Gaurav Khattar appealed that decision, but the High Court dismissed his appeal mainly because it was filed way too late—over 3,000 days after the original ruling. Not giving up, Gaurav Khattar then asked the High Court to review its own dismissal, saying there were mistakes in the record and new evidence he found. The High Court looked at this request carefully but ended up saying no, keeping the earlier dismissal in place. The facts go back to 2016 when Virender Aggarwal filed a lawsuit against Gaurav Khattar in a district court in Delhi, claiming money owed from a loan, supported by checks. The court sent a notice to Gaurav Khattar, which was given to his father on May 18, 2016. Gaurav Khattar didn't appear in court, so the judge ruled against him on June 10, 2016, ordering him to pay. Gaurav Khattar says he didn't know about this until much later, in July 2023, when he got a notice about enforcing the payment. He claims his father never told him because they weren't on good terms—his sister had tried to take her own life, causing family tension—and his father had eye problems from a surgery in December 2016. Gaurav Khattar also mentioned he withdrew from society starting August 2016, got arrested in December 2021, and was out on bail in January 2022. These personal issues, he argued, explained why he didn't act sooner.
Procedural Detail
The journey through the courts started with the original lawsuit, numbered Civil Suit No. 2626/2016, filed by Virender Aggarwal in the District and Sessions Court at Karkardooma, Delhi. That court issued a summons to Gaurav Khattar, which was served on his father as per the rules in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since Gaurav Khattar didn't respond or appear, the court passed a judgment and decree against him on June 10, 2016. Fast forward to July 2023, when Gaurav Khattar received a notice for execution of that decree, meaning the court was moving to enforce the payment. He first tried to challenge it by filing an application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the executing court, but that was dismissed because the court said it didn't have the power to handle it. Then, he filed a similar application in the original trial court, which dismissed it on January 20, 2025, saying it was too late and lacked merit. Not stopping there, Gaurav Khattar filed an appeal against the 2016 judgment in the High Court of Delhi, numbered RFA 485/2025, along with a request to excuse the huge delay of 3192 days. The High Court heard this appeal and, on June 25, 2025, dismissed it, saying the delay wasn't justified and the original service of notice was proper. Still determined, Gaurav Khattar filed a review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, numbered Review Pet. No. 427/2025, along with some related applications. This review was heard by the same judge, and the decision came on November 24, 2025, dismissing the review.
Core Dispute
At the heart of this case was whether the High Court should revisit its own decision to dismiss Gaurav Khattar's appeal. Gaurav Khattar argued two main points for the review: first, he had found new important evidence—an Aadhar Card and bank passbook showing he lived at a different address (219, Teliwara, Shahadara) than where the notice was served (186, Teliwara)—proving he wasn't properly notified. He said these documents weren't available to him earlier because they were with his estranged father. Second, he claimed there was an obvious mistake in the High Court's earlier judgment because it didn't consider documents about his father's eye surgery in December 2016 and his sister's suicide attempt, which explained why his father couldn't or didn't tell him about the notice. These issues, he said, meant the original court decision was unfair since he never got a chance to defend himself. On the other side, the court had to decide if these reasons met the strict rules for a review, which only allows changes if there's a clear error on the record or truly new evidence that couldn't have been found earlier with reasonable effort.
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court Including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning
The High Court, through Justice Tejas Karia, carefully broke down Gaurav Khattar's arguments in the review petition. Starting with the new evidence claim, Gaurav Khattar presented his Aadhar Card and bank passbook to show he lived at a different address at the time of the notice in 2016. His lawyer argued these were discovered only recently and proved the notice was served wrong, meaning Gaurav Khattar had no knowledge of the lawsuit. The court, however, said these documents weren't really "new" in the legal sense under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows review only if the evidence was not known or obtainable with due diligence at the time. The judge pointed out that Gaurav Khattar could have gotten copies of his own Aadhar and bank records from the authorities anytime by being careful and proactive. Even if they were with his father, that didn't excuse not trying harder earlier. Moreover, the court said even accepting these documents, they didn't prove Gaurav Khattar was at that address exactly when the notice was served in May 2016—they just showed a general address. The record clearly showed the notice was given to his father, which is allowed under Order V Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the person can't be found personally and a family member accepts it. No citation to other cases was directly quoted here, but the reasoning relied on the plain reading of these CPC provisions, emphasizing that service on an adult family member living in the same house is valid unless proven otherwise. Moving to the second ground, the alleged error on the face of the record, Gaurav Khattar said the High Court's June 25, 2025, judgment ignored key documents: a medical discharge summary for his father's cataract surgery in December 2016, showing vision problems, and records of his sister's suicide attempt, which caused family rift. He argued this meant his father couldn't understand or communicate the notice properly, making the service invalid. The court disagreed, explaining that an "error apparent on the face of the record" under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 must be obvious without needing deep argument or re-examination of facts—it's not for rearguing the whole case. Here, the surgery happened in December 2016, months after the notice was served on May 18, 2016, so the father's vision issues couldn't have affected that moment. The family stress from the sister's incident was assumed but not proven to prevent the father from informing Gaurav Khattar. The judge called these claims afterthoughts based on guesses, not solid proof. To support this, the court referred back to its own earlier judgment in RFA 485/2025 dated June 25, 2025, where it had already discussed the delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, noting that the 3192-day delay wasn't excused by personal issues like withdrawing from society (which started after the 2016 judgment) or later arrest. That judgment cited no external cases but relied on CPC provisions like Order XXXVII Rules 4 and 5 for setting aside summary judgments, and stressed that Gaurav Khattar admitted giving checks for a loan but provided no evidence against it. The review judgment reiterated that both the executing and trial courts correctly dismissed his earlier applications on delay and merit, aligning with the principle that courts won't condone delays without good cause. Overall, the discussion highlighted how reviews are narrow—not a second appeal—and cited the CPC's intent to prevent endless litigation, ensuring finality unless there's a glaring mistake.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the review petition, saying no valid grounds were made out for changing the earlier judgment. All related applications were also closed off, keeping the dismissal of the appeal intact. This meant the original 2016 decree against Gaurav Khattar stood, and he couldn't challenge it further through this route.
Concluding Note
This case shows how strict courts can be about deadlines and proper notice in legal matters, reminding everyone that personal troubles, while sad, don't always excuse delays unless proven directly relevant. It underlines the importance of acting quickly and gathering evidence early, as reviews are a last resort only for clear errors or truly undiscoverable facts. For anyone facing similar issues, it highlights checking family communications and records promptly to avoid losing rights.
Case Title: Sh. Gaurav Khattar Vs Sh. Virender Aggarwal Order Date: November 24, 2025 Case Number: Review Pet. No. 427/2025 in RFA 485/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10364 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested Titles for This Legal Analytical Article
- Reviewing Judicial Decisions: Limits on New Evidence and Apparent Errors in Delhi High Court Rulings
- The Strict Scope of Review Petitions Under CPC: Insights from Gaurav Khattar vs Virender Aggarwal
- Delay Condonation and Service of Summons: A Case Study on Procedural Fairness in Indian Courts
- When Personal Hardships Meet Legal Deadlines: Analyzing the Dismissal of a Review in a Debt Recovery Dispute
- Error on the Record or Afterthought? Exploring Review Mechanisms in High Court Appeals
Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Long-Delayed Debt Recovery Case: Sh. Gaurav Khattar vs Sh. Virender Aggarwal
New Delhi, November 29, 2025 – In a recent ruling by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the review petition in the case titled Sh. Gaurav Khattar vs Sh. Virender Aggarwal, bearing case number Review Pet. No. 427/2025 in RFA 485/2025, with the order dated November 24, 2025. The decision upholds the court's prior judgment from June 25, 2025, which had rejected Khattar's appeal against a 2016 trial court decree ordering him to repay a loan to Aggarwal based on bounced cheques.
The dispute traces back to a 2016 civil suit where Aggarwal sued Khattar for loan recovery, and the trial court passed an ex-parte decree after summons were served on Khattar's father. Khattar claimed he was unaware of the proceedings due to family estrangement, his father's vision issues post-cataract surgery, and his own withdrawal from society following personal hardships, including an arrest in 2021. He only learned of the decree in 2023 during execution proceedings and filed a delayed appeal after unsuccessful attempts to set it aside in lower courts.
In the review petition, Khattar argued for reconsideration on grounds of new evidence—his Aadhaar card and bank passbook showing a different residential address—and an alleged error in the earlier judgment for overlooking documents about his father's health and his sister's suicide attempt, which he said invalidated the summons service. However, Justice Karia held that the new documents could have been obtained with due diligence and did not prove improper service at the time, as the summons were validly delivered to Khattar's father in May 2016, before the surgery. The court deemed the submissions as afterthoughts and found no apparent error on the record, dismissing the petition while emphasizing adherence to the Code of Civil Procedure's rules on service and reviews.
This ruling reinforces the strict standards for condoning delays and reviewing judgments, highlighting that personal circumstances must be substantiated and timely to warrant relief.
Disclaimer:This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
=====
