Synergy Multitech Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd.

1. This first appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC against the judgment of the court below dated 9.9.2011 by which the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed has been dismissed. The application under Order

9 Rule 13 sought recalling of the ex parte judgment dated 9.9.2011 by which suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed for a sum of Rs. 15,49,994/along with interest @ 16% per annum on account of computer goods and peripherals supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant and for which a cheque of Rs. 15,50,000/- was given (rounded up figure) by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff. 2014:DHC:1285 FAO 220/2012

2. The impugned order shows that the appellant/defendant was duly served in the suit. Appellant/defendant appeared through counsel in the suit. Appellant/defendant through its advocate filed with written statement, but subsequently failed to appear.

3. Case of the appellant/defendant in its application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is that its counsel was not contacting it, but this has been disbelieved by the court below because court below notes that the earlier counsel Mr. A. Alam placed a copy of the notice dated 24.7.2010 along with postal receipts sent to the appellants showing that he had no option but to withdraw from the case because appellant/defendant was not giving instructions. Therefore, the court below has rightly disbelieved the case of the appellant/defendant that the Advocate did not inform the appellant/defendant of the case and wrongly stopped appearing.

4. I completely agree with the aforesaid conclusions of the court below for dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

MARCH 07, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J godara