Nirmaljeet Singh v. Guljeet Singh & Ors., 2026

The underlying civil suit concerned allegations of unauthorised construction, seepage-related damage and obstruction of access.

The appellant was proceeded against ex parte along with the other defendants in June 2022.

In November 2023, the Trial Court passed an ex-parte judgment and decree, awarding ₹10 lakh as damages along with injunctive reliefs.

The appellant subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, stating that he had never been served with the summons and had no knowledge of the proceedings.

He claimed that he came to know about the ex-parte decree only in July 2025 through documents sent to him on WhatsApp in connection with High Court proceedings.

The Trial Court rejected his application, holding that he had knowledge of the decree by 19/22 July 2025 and that the application was beyond the prescribed limitation period.

The Trial Court also relied upon the process server's report regarding transmission of summons through WhatsApp.

The process server's report, however, recorded that a call to the relevant mobile number was answered by a third person, who identified himself as the appellant's relative and stated that he would inform the appellant about the summons.

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.

It set aside the Trial Court's order insofar as it concerned the appellant.

The Court held that merely transmitting summons through WhatsApp does not conclusively establish that the defendant actually received or had notice of the summons.

The fact that the mobile number belonged to or was associated with the appellant was distinguished from proof of actual receipt.

The process server's report showing that the call was answered by a third person created an important intervening circumstance.

The appellant's consistent denial of having received the summons required a more cautious examination of the evidence.

The Court therefore allowed the appellant's Order IX Rule 13 CPC application, subject to payment of ₹20,000 costs.

The judgment recognizes an important distinction between electronic transmission and effective service. Sending a message to a particular number establishes transmission, but not necessarily that the intended recipient personally received or understood the summons.

The Court adopted a fact-sensitive approach rather than treating WhatsApp delivery as automatically equivalent to personal service.

The process server's own report was significant because it indicated that someone other than the appellant had answered the relevant call. This weakened the assumption that the appellant had personally received the summons.

The ruling is particularly relevant to the increasing use of electronic modes of service in civil litigation. Digital methods can facilitate speedy service, but procedural fairness still requires reasonable assurance that the intended party actually received notice.

The Court also protected the distinction between knowledge of proceedings and knowledge of a decree. A defendant learning about an ex-parte decree much later cannot automatically be presumed to have had earlier knowledge of the original summons.

The decision reinforces the underlying purpose of Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which provides a remedy where an ex-parte decree has been passed against a defendant who was not duly served or was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.

The judgment does not mean that WhatsApp service is invalid. Rather, it establishes that WhatsApp transmission cannot mechanically be treated as conclusive proof of personal service in every case.

The decision therefore balances technological convenience with the fundamental requirement of natural justice and effective notice before a party is deprived of an opportunity to defend a civil claim.