Mohit Kumar v. Quality Printers Pvt Ltd & Ors.

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing CM No.16922/2015. The delay is of 18 days.

2. Though Mr. Chadha, learned senior counsel for the nonapplicant/respondent, opposes the plea for condonation of delay because of the past conduct of the applicant/appellant; the delay is, however, condoned, having regard to the fact that the period involved is short.

3. The application is disposed of. CM No.16922/2015 (u/S 151 CPC for hearing the appeal on merits)

4. This is an application in which a prayer has been made that the appeal be heard on merits. This prayer is made in the background of the order dated 29.5.2015, passed by this Court, whereby this court, after noticing the 2015:DHC:6977 contours of the litigation obtaining between the parties, in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 made the following observations:

5. As would be apparent, the impugned order, which is passed by the trial court and is dated 29.1.2015, was set aside by my predecessor with the consent of the applicant/appellant and non-applicant/respondent Nos.[1] to 3 subject to a deposit, in the sum of Rs.1,55,000/-, being made by the applicant/appellant with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks. The said amount, as per the aforementioned directions, was to be kept in a fixed deposit till further orders. Admittedly, this condition has not been complied with. 5.[1] The other directions issued, vide order dated 29.5.2015, would show that the applicant/appellant was given an opportunity to produce the entire evidence before the trial court on 16.7.2015.

6. It is conceded before me, by Mr. Sood, that on 16.7.2015, the applicant/appellant was not present in Court. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the suit once again.

7. Mr. Sood, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant, says that since the applicant/appellant was not in a position to deposit the sum of Rs.1,55,000/-, a prayer has been made in the instant application that the appeal be heard on merits.

8. It may be important to note that the genesis of the crystallisation of the amount indicated in the order dated 29.5.2015 lies in another order passed by this Court, on 29.10.2014, in CM (M) No.957/2014. In those proceedings, taken out by the applicant/appellant, the trial court’s order dated 1.10.2014 whereby, his application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had been dismissed, was assailed. The plea in the application, broadly, was to implead two other co-owners as defendants to the suit.

9. While dismissing the petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the very same order, i.e. order dated 29.10.2014 issued the following directions in paragraph 9:-

10. As would be evident upon a perusal of the aforesaid directions, the learned Single Judge, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Valmiki Mehta, had indicated that the petition is being dismissed with actual costs and those costs would include costs incurred for the hearing held on that date before him. It appears that a bill of costs was thereafter supplied by the nonapplicant/respondents to the applicant/appellant. The costs had been pegged, accordingly, at Rs.1,55,000/-. 10.[1] Thus, it is in this background, that the costs in the sum of Rs.1,55,000/- got mentioned in the order dated 29.5.2015.

11. The quantification of the costs is, therefore, not in dispute since, the appellant, as indicated above, agreed, at least, on 29.5.2015 to pay a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-.

12. I may only indicate that this aspect attains even greater clarity by virtue of order dated 27.1.2015, passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Valmiki Mehta, in an application moved, before him, by the nonapplicant/respondent to seek clarification of the earlier order i.e. order dated 29.10.2014. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 27.1.2015, in no uncertain terms, indicated quite explicitly that the order was clear and needed no clarification. 13.[1] Therefore, as indicated above, the quantification of costs cannot be revisited in the present proceedings.

14. The averment made in the present application is, therefore, confined to the inability to pay the sum of Rs.1,55,000/-.