Delhi High Court
M/S Skytech Construction Ltd vs Ashok Kumar Sharma on 22 January, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% 22nd January, 2025
+ CM(M) 3995/2024 & CM APPL. 71459/2024
M/S SKYTECH CONSTRUCTION LTD ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jatin Sapra, Adv.
versus
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yashvir Kumar and
Mr. M.R. Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
impugning the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the learned District
Judge in Civil Suit No. 349/2020, titled “Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs.
M/s. Skytech Construction Pvt. Ltd.
2. Petitioner is the defendant in the suit for recovery filed by the
respondent.
3. On 18.08.2023 while the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence,
no one appeared for the petitioner. The trial court passed the following
order:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3995/2024 Page 1 of 5
By:SUNITA KUMARI
Signing Date:23.01.2025
17:33:49
“18.08.2023
Present: Mr. Yashvir Kumar and Mr. M. R. Singh, Ld.
Counsels for plaintiff with plaintiff in person.
None for defendant.
Affidavit of plaintiff for his evidence is filed. It is
stated by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that advance copy of
affidavit has already been supplied to opposite counsel
through speed post.
Plaintiff is examined as PW-1. No one is appearing
on behalf of defendant despite calls. It is 11:40 am. In the
facts, by proceeding under Order 17 CPC; PW-1 is
discharged.
Vide statement of plaintiff, PE is closed.
Put up on 04.11.2023 for final arguments.”
4. On 22.04.2024, petitioner filed an application under Order 9
Rule 13 CPC for recall of order dated 18.08.2023. The application was
considered as one filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and was dismissed
vide order dated 03.09.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier
counsel engaged by the petitioner was suffering from eye-flu and the
father of the Director of the petitioner company was also not keeping
well and due to this reason, no one from the company as well as the
counsel appeared before the Court.
6. It is further submitted that previous counsel after regaining her
health, came to know about the passing of the impugned order in April
2024, where after, the application was filed under Order 9 Rule 13
CPC (treated as under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC), therein, explaining all the
facts and circumstances.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3995/2024 Page 2 of 5
By:SUNITA KUMARI
Signing Date:23.01.2025
17:33:49
7. Learned counsel further submits that the trial court has failed to
consider the medical certificate of the then counsel and without
appreciating that the counsel was advised 15 days rest to avoid
exposure to any kind of light.
8. It is submitted that the non-availability of the counsel as well as
the absence of the petitioner on the date fixed was neither wilful nor
intentional, but because of circumstances beyond the control of the
petitioner.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
conduct of the petitioner during the trial has not been good, inasmuch
as, on previous occasions also i.e. on 07.02.2023 and 31.03.2023, no
one appeared for the petitioner. It is further submitted that the written
statement on behalf of the respondent was filed under the signatures of
the Manager, Arun Kumar, and therefore, there is no reason as to why
even the Manager was not present on behalf of the petitioner to seek
an adjournment. It is argued that the petitioner wilfully did not appear
so that the recording of the evidence gets adjourned.
10. As is apparent from the order dated 18.08.2023, trial court
recorded the statement of PW-1 and proceeded under Order 17 CPC
and discharged PW-1.
11. Order 17 Rule 2 CPC provides the procedure if parties fail to
appear on the date fixed. It states that where on any day to which the
hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3995/2024 Page 3 of 5
By:SUNITA KUMARI
Signing Date:23.01.2025
17:33:49
appear, the court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the
modes directed in that behalf by Order 9. The explanation to Rule 2
provides that where the evidence or a substantial portion of the
evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails
to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the
court may, in its discretion proceed with the case as if such party was
present.
12. Order 9 Rule 7 CPC provides the procedure where the
defendant appears on the day of adjourned hearing and assigns good
cause for previous non-appearance. It provides that where the court
has adjourned the hearing of the suit, ex-parte and the defendant, at or
before such hearing appears or assigns good cause for his previous
non-appearance, he may upon such terms as the court directs or to
costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared
on the day fixed for his appearance.
13. As per discharge summary of the then counsel Ms. Deeksha
Sharma, she was admitted in the hospital on 05.08.2023 on account of
eye-flu and was discharged on 06.08.2023. Even though, she was
prescribed medicines for approximately 15 days, but the discharge
summary does not reveal that she was advised any kind of bed-rest,
due to which, she could not have attended the court hearing.
14. Be that as it may, even if the lawyer was not available, the
Director/other staff/Manager of the company could have represented
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3995/2024 Page 4 of 5
By:SUNITA KUMARI
Signing Date:23.01.2025
17:33:49
the petitioner in the court case. A litigant cannot abandon the
responsibility to track his case after entrusting the same to a lawyer.
15. No medical record of the father of the Director of the petitioner
has been placed on record to show that he was suffering from any
serious ailment or was lying admitted in Apollo Hospital, as has been
argued.
16. Petitioner has failed to assign any good cause for its non-
appearance before the Court on 18.08.2023. There is no legal infirmity
or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The
Court finds no merit in the petition.
17. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial
court has fixed the matter for final arguments and therefore, he may be
granted liberty to file an application for grant of permission to lead
defendant’s evidence.
18. Petition is dismissed while granting the liberty as prayed for.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
22nd January, 2025
RM
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 3995/2024 Page 5 of 5
By:SUNITA KUMARI
Signing Date:23.01.2025
17:33:49
[ad_1]
Source link