Full Text
Translation output
* s.-
' c'L.I™26V2ofs
CENTRALBANKOFINDIA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Pratap Singh Parmar,Advocate
' c'L.I™26V2ofs
CENTRALBANKOFINDIA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Pratap Singh Parmar,Advocate
VERSUS
AMIT VOHRA ^
, Respondent rhrough. Mr.Aman Jha,Advocate
, Respondent rhrough. Mr.Aman Jha,Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
28.08.2018
Thelearned counselfortherespondentstatesthathe would liketo file aleply.The said respondent was neverpresentinthetrial court.
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 10.01.2017 dismissing his complaint case in default.
ItIS the petitioner's case thatthe learned counsel could not be present atthetime when the case was called out,as he was busy in another Courtat the SaketDistrictCourts onthatdate. The dismissal was also on accountof the Report ofthe Ahlmad,stating that process fee had not been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Annexure P-2 to the petition showing acknowledgement of Process Fee on 12.09.2017 for issuance of notice, returnable on 24.10.2017, in terms ofthe order dated 31.08.2017.
Notice has yetnot been issued to the respondent.
In view ofthe above,the Court is ofthe opinion that not only is the dismissal of.the case, for non-prosecution of the matter erroneous as the record would show; furthermore, insofar as the counsel states that he was busy m another court, an accommodation for the day should have been
2018:DHC:9374 accorded to him.
The petition is disposed-off. Leave granted.
CRL.A..^..7;^..72018(to be numbered)
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The case is restored to its original number and position. The case is remanded to the Trial Court where the parties shall appear on 17.09.2018.
The learned counsel for the respondent states that since now he has due notice of the case and he will appear before the Trial Court on the aforesaid date.
NAJPI WAZIRI,J
AUGUST 28,2018 rd
I
2018:DHC:9374
28.08.2018
Thelearned counselfortherespondentstatesthathe would liketo file aleply.The said respondent was neverpresentinthetrial court.
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 10.01.2017 dismissing his complaint case in default.
ItIS the petitioner's case thatthe learned counsel could not be present atthetime when the case was called out,as he was busy in another Courtat the SaketDistrictCourts onthatdate. The dismissal was also on accountof the Report ofthe Ahlmad,stating that process fee had not been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Annexure P-2 to the petition showing acknowledgement of Process Fee on 12.09.2017 for issuance of notice, returnable on 24.10.2017, in terms ofthe order dated 31.08.2017.
Notice has yetnot been issued to the respondent.
In view ofthe above,the Court is ofthe opinion that not only is the dismissal of.the case, for non-prosecution of the matter erroneous as the record would show; furthermore, insofar as the counsel states that he was busy m another court, an accommodation for the day should have been
2018:DHC:9374 accorded to him.
The petition is disposed-off. Leave granted.
CRL.A..^..7;^..72018(to be numbered)
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The case is restored to its original number and position. The case is remanded to the Trial Court where the parties shall appear on 17.09.2018.
The learned counsel for the respondent states that since now he has due notice of the case and he will appear before the Trial Court on the aforesaid date.
NAJPI WAZIRI,J
AUGUST 28,2018 rd
I
2018:DHC:9374
JUDGMENT