Court No. - 26
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 281 of 2016 Revisionist :- M/S Krishna Road Lines (Bulk Lpg Transporter) Opposite Party :- Rajeev Sikand Counsel for Revisionist :- Manish Goyal,Ankita Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Saxena Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Learned counsel for the revisionist is present.
Learned counsel for the respondent is not present.
This is a matter expedited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 21.8.2017. It appears that an interim order was granted by this Court while entertaining the Revision on 22.8.2016, against which the respondent had approached the Supreme Court in SLP No. 22023 of 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay, but refused to interfere in the interim order and dismissed the SLP, and observed that the High Court should decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. No time limit has been fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
From a perusal of the order sheet, it is also clear that after 21.8.2017, when the SLP was dismissed, the matter has been listed before this Court on
16.3.2018, 28.3.2018, 3.4.2018 & 1.5.2018.
However, it has always been adjourned, and the interim order has been extended till the next date of listing. Therefore, this Court will not adjourn the matter today there is no request for adjournment on behalf of the respondent also. In the absence of learned counsel for the respondent, the learned counsel for the revisionist is being heard.
I have heard Sri Siddhartha Singhal.
He has read out the order dated 4.7.2016 by which the application of the plaintiff / respondent registered as paper no. 4-Ga has been allowed. Such an application was filed under Order IX, Rule 9 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code praying for recall of order dated 18.11.2015 by which SCC Suit No. 14 of 2014 had been dismissed for want of prosecution.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has also read out the order dated 21.7.2016 by which after restoration application was allowed, the learned Trial Court has directed to proceed ex-parte against the revisionist on his non appearance on 21.7.2016.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that only ground for recall of order dated 18.11.2015 mentioned by the plaintiff in his application was that on 18.11.2015, the Advocates were on strike, and therefore his counsel could not appear. This reason was apparently incorrect, as no such mention has been made in the order dated 18.11.2015 that the Advocates are abstaining from work. It is common knowledge that whenever the Bar Association passes a resolution for the Advocates to abstain from work, the copy of the said resolution is also given to all Presiding Officers and mention of the same is also made in orders passed in the order sheet in various cases listed before the respective Courts.
Moreover, from a perusal of the order dated 18.11.2015, it is apparent that the defendant was present.
A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the revisionist which has brought on record orders of the same date i.e. 18.11.2015 passed by various Courts in other matters relating to the same district judgeship, it has been contended that other cases were taken up and even in other Courts, there is no mention in the order sheet that there is a resolution of the Bar Association for abstaining from work.
There is an apparent misrepresentation in the application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code moved by the plaintiff / respondent and the learned Trial Court without application of mind has allowed the application for recall and restored the same.
It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that when notice of application under Order IX, Rule 9 was sent to the revisionist, it was returned without service with an endorsement that the premises were found locked. Despite such an endorsement the learned Trial Court has observed that it shall be deemed that service was affected upon the defendants and has passed the order on restoration. Restoration of the Suit was in absence of the defendant and therefore defendant could not appear on 21.7.2016 by the order for proceeding ex-parte has been passed Having gone through the record and having heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist, this Court finds an apparent error in the orders impugned. The orders dated 4.7.2016 and 21.7.2016 are set aside.
The matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court to consider afresh the application filed by the plaintiff / respondent under Order IX, Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code, at the earliest.
The Revision is allowed to this extent.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Arif