Capt. Dinesh Singh Dhillion v. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd.

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India defendant no.1/petitioner impugns the order of the trial court dated 19.l[5].2014 which has refused to recall the earlier orders by which 2014:DHC:5847 petitioner/defendant no.1 was proceeded exparte on 1.9.2010 and his defence was struck off on 17.1.2012.

2. I find that in this petition petitioner/defendant no.1 has deliberately not filed the pleadings in the suit, and which is a suit for recovery of monies of Rs.15,25,000/- which has been filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff in the suit against the various defendants including the petitioner/defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 in the suit being the present petitioner is sued as the principal debtor and defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit were guarantors. Since no pleadings have been filed before this Court hence I only guess that petitioner/defendant no.1 who is a pilot obviously must have been sued by the respondent company-Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. because the petitioner/defendant no.1 would have left the services earlier than the services period prescribed in the service bond.

3. I fail to understand the tendency amongst litigants and lawyers who deliberately conceal the pleadings of the suit inasmuch as the pleadings in the suit are very necessary for this Court to get a complete picture of the issues in the case.

4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner, who was not present when the judgment dictation commenced appears and confirms that the suit is for the recovery of monies because the petitioner/pilot/defendant no.1 had left the services of respondent no.1/plaintiff earlier than the expiry of the service bond period.

5. Though the petitioner/defendant no.1 may seem to be technically correct in arguing that court has wrongly dismissed the application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) of the petitioner/defendant no.1 on account of failure of the petitioner to secure appearance of his erstwhile attorney, because the physical presence of the attorney of the petitioner/defendant no.1 rightly cannot be enforced by the petitioner/defendant no.1, however, the issue which really requires consideration is that the petitioner/defendant no.1 admittedly was proceeded exparte way back on 1.9.2010 and the subject application was filed much later only in October 2012 and I do not find any reason whatsoever as to why the petitioner/defendant no.1 for over two years did not take any steps to check up the position with respect to the recovery suit filed against him, that too for a substantial amount of Rs.15,25,000/- with interest. Obviously, actions of the petitioner/defendant no.1 are malafide and the only object is to delay and drag the suit for recovery of monies which prima facie seems to be payable by petitioner/defendant no.1 on account of his breaching the service bond condition. Obviously, if disputes have already arisen between the petitioner/defendant no.1 and his attorney holder on account of the attorney holder being related to his wife, surely, the petitioner/defendant no.1 should have thereafter been extra careful and should have taken reasonable precautions to find out about the progress of the suit at least at some infrequent intervals and surely therefore there is an unexplained period of about 2 years from when the petitioner/defendant no.1 was proceeded exparte and the subject application was filed in October 2012 which does not entitle the petitioner to have the orders proceeding him exparte and striking off his defence recalled.

6. Dismissed.

NOVEMBER 10, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib