Delhi High Court: a defendant can't undo an ex parte decree by just blaming its lawyer, without proof

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a defendant's bid to reopen a trademark suit it lost by default, rejecting its claim that the fault lay entirely with its lawyer. The Aryan Educational Society, which runs 'The Aryan School' in Dehradun and holds registered marks for that name, had sued Aaryan International School for using a deceptively similar name. The defendant did not appear despite being served, was set ex parte, and on 25 October 2024 the Court decreed a permanent injunction and Rs 5 lakh in damages against it. Over a year later, the defendant applied under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the decree, and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone a 196-day delay in filing that application, blaming its advocate for failing to appear or to inform it of the proceedings.

Justice Jyoti Singh held that the defendant had placed no document on record -- no vakalatnama, fee receipt or correspondence -- to even prove the advocate was engaged, let alone negligent, and that no complaint had been filed against him with the Bar Council. Relying on Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545, the Court held that 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 13 requires a party to show it was not negligent, and that a litigant -- more so a 'large educational institution' -- owes an independent duty to track its own case, especially once orders are published on the Court's website. Both applications were dismissed, and the ex parte decree stands.