Gaurav Khattar had suffered an ex-parte decree in a cheque-bounce recovery suit on 10.06.2016 after summons were served on his father at 186 Teliwara, Delhi on 18.05.2016; he filed RFA 485/2025 with a delay of 3192 days claiming he never knew of the suit because he lived at 219 Teliwara and was estranged from his father. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 25.06.2025 holding the service valid and the delay unexplained. Thereafter, Khattar filed a review petition relying on “newly discovered” Aadhaar card and bank passbook showing address 219 Teliwara and medical records of his father’s cataract surgery in December 2016 and family discord. The High Court held that Aadhaar and passbook were always obtainable with due diligence hence not “new evidence”, that even if accepted they did not prove residence at the material time in May 2016, that service on father was lawful under CPC, and that the father’s surgery being post-service was irrelevant; finding no error apparent on record nor any ground for review, the court dismissed the review petition on 24.11.2025.
- Review cannot be allowed on documents (Aadhaar, bank records) that were always capable of being obtained by due diligence from concerned authorities (Para 8-9).
- For “newly discovered evidence” under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the document must not have been within the applicant’s power to produce at the proper time despite reasonable diligence (Para 8).
- Service of summons on adult family member (father) at the defendant’s known address is valid service under CPC; subsequent medical condition of the family member is irrelevant if it arose after service (Para 9, 12-13).
- No error apparent exists merely because certain documents on record were not specifically adverted to in the judgment if they do not affect the legality of service already effected (Para 10-13).
Case Title: Sh. Gaurav Khattar Vs. Sh. Virender Aggarwal
Order Date: 24 November 2025
Case Number: Review Pet. 427/2025 in RFA 485/2025
Neutral Citation: Not yet assigned
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
