Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Radhey Shyam & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 07 Aug 2009 · 2009:DHC:3124
Shiv Narayan Dhingra
OMP 553/2006
2009:DHC:3124
civil appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed restoration of a petition dismissed in default due to counsel’s negligence, subject to costs and filing of rejoinder.

Full Text
Translation output
OMP 553/2006 MCD v.M/s Radhey Shyam & Anr.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Reserve: July 28, 2009
Date of Order: August 07, 2009
IA 990/2009 in OMP 553/2006
07.08.2009 Municipal Corporation of Delhi ...Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anshuman Jain, Advocate
VERSUS
M/s Radhey Shyam & Anr. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur and Mr. Honey Taneja, Advocates
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
JUDGMENT

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER

1. This application under Section 151 CPC has been made by the applicant/petitioner for restoration of the petition which was dismissed in default on 15th July 2008, as none appeared for the petitioner on 31st March 2008 and 15th July 2008, i.e. on two dates of hearing.

2. A perusal of record would show that prior to 31st March 2008, counsel for petitioner was Mr. Nitin Monga who was putting appearance up to 31st March 2008 but he did not appear thereafter. The Petitioner changed the counsel and after that present counsel had been appearing regularly. It is stated in the application that the petitioner did not receive intimation with respect to the directions given by the Court for filing rejoinder nor the petitioner was aware that petitioner was not being represented by the counsel on last two dates. A prayer is made that the present petition be 2009:DHC:3124 OMP 553/2006 MCD v.M/s Radhey Shyam & Anr. restored since huge financial implications were involved. An unconditional apology was tendered by petitioner for non filing of rejoinder and non representation.

3. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner has been prosecuting the case diligently before 31st March 2008 but after that it seems that the earlier counsel, who was removed by the petitioner, had become careless and he neither appeared in the Court nor informed the petitioner about his reasons for non appearance nor made any arrangement for appearance in the Court on his behalf.

4. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I allow this application for restoration of the petition subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- which may be paid within four weeks to the respondent.

5. The application stands disposed of. OMP 553/2006 List this petition for arguments and disposal in the category of “finals” at its own turn. Rejoinder be filed by the petitioner within 8 weeks, after payment of costs. August 07, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd