Full Text
Translation output
•v/'
$-7 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 349/2013
BHUPINDER SHOKEEN Appellant
Through: Mr. L.R. Khatana and Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Advocates.
$-7 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 349/2013
BHUPINDER SHOKEEN Appellant
Through: Mr. L.R. Khatana and Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Advocates.
VERSUS
SHASHICHAND SHARMA Respondent
Through: None.
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
02.08.2013 The appellant-plaintiff claims to be aggrieved by order of the learned
Single Judge dated 19.7.2013 to the extent thatthe Court directed to deposit
Rs. 50,000/- as costs with any Delhi High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund within a week as a condition for issuance of notice in the application for restoration of the suit.
This Court has requisitioned the file in the suit. On 13.8.2012, summons were issued in the suit; an ex-parte ad-interim order was also made. The matter was listed on 15.10.2012 to consider compliance under
Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. The Joint Registrar recorded that the plaintiff had in fact complied with the said provisionsbut at the same time noted that the defendants were unserved. Since the plaintiff was not represented, the matter was listed before the Court on 23.11.2012. On that day, there was no representation on behalfof theplaintiff. TheCourt didnot pass anyadverse order in the matter since it noticed that the case has been shown in the typed cause-list only. The matter was again listed on 19.12.2012. Onthat dayi.e.
19.12.2012, there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. The
2013:DHC:6984-DB appellant explained this circumstance as a result of the Resolution dated
18.12.2012 of the Delhi High Court Bar Association according to Which the counsel were required not to attend the Courts. As a result, there was no ! appearance and matter was subsequently listed on 21.2.2013. In these circumstances, the Court dismissed the suit on 21.2.2013.
Having considered the order sheet and the suit, this Court is of the opinion that the direction topay Rs. 50,000/- unconditionally as costs tothe
Delhi High Court Lawyers Fund would be too harsh as the plaintiffs right to pursue the restoration application would be seriously prejudiced and in a sense foreclosed and also constrain his access tojustice. Thesummons inthe suit further, have notyetbeen served. Inthese circumstances, theCourt is of the opinion that the orderis required to be set aside to the extent of direction ' to pay Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiffi^appellant instead shall deposit Rs.
10,000/- in Court as a pre-condition for issuance of the notice on the application. The order to bemade with regard to disbursement of costs shall be decided bythe Court when the application isfinally considered.
The appellant shall deposit the said amount within aweek from today.
Subject to such condition (as directed by the learned Single Judge), notice shallissue on the application forrestoration, for the returnable date.
The impugned order is set aside to the above extent. The appeal is allowed in these terms. , ' '
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J AUGUST 02,2013/mv 2013:DHC:6984-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
02.08.2013 The appellant-plaintiff claims to be aggrieved by order of the learned
Single Judge dated 19.7.2013 to the extent thatthe Court directed to deposit
Rs. 50,000/- as costs with any Delhi High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund within a week as a condition for issuance of notice in the application for restoration of the suit.
This Court has requisitioned the file in the suit. On 13.8.2012, summons were issued in the suit; an ex-parte ad-interim order was also made. The matter was listed on 15.10.2012 to consider compliance under
Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. The Joint Registrar recorded that the plaintiff had in fact complied with the said provisionsbut at the same time noted that the defendants were unserved. Since the plaintiff was not represented, the matter was listed before the Court on 23.11.2012. On that day, there was no representation on behalfof theplaintiff. TheCourt didnot pass anyadverse order in the matter since it noticed that the case has been shown in the typed cause-list only. The matter was again listed on 19.12.2012. Onthat dayi.e.
19.12.2012, there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. The
2013:DHC:6984-DB appellant explained this circumstance as a result of the Resolution dated
18.12.2012 of the Delhi High Court Bar Association according to Which the counsel were required not to attend the Courts. As a result, there was no ! appearance and matter was subsequently listed on 21.2.2013. In these circumstances, the Court dismissed the suit on 21.2.2013.
Having considered the order sheet and the suit, this Court is of the opinion that the direction topay Rs. 50,000/- unconditionally as costs tothe
Delhi High Court Lawyers Fund would be too harsh as the plaintiffs right to pursue the restoration application would be seriously prejudiced and in a sense foreclosed and also constrain his access tojustice. Thesummons inthe suit further, have notyetbeen served. Inthese circumstances, theCourt is of the opinion that the orderis required to be set aside to the extent of direction ' to pay Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiffi^appellant instead shall deposit Rs.
10,000/- in Court as a pre-condition for issuance of the notice on the application. The order to bemade with regard to disbursement of costs shall be decided bythe Court when the application isfinally considered.
The appellant shall deposit the said amount within aweek from today.
Subject to such condition (as directed by the learned Single Judge), notice shallissue on the application forrestoration, for the returnable date.
The impugned order is set aside to the above extent. The appeal is allowed in these terms. , ' '
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J AUGUST 02,2013/mv 2013:DHC:6984-DB
JUDGMENT