The Tripura High Court allowed a Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order passed by the learned Civil Judge by which the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC.
Brief Facts:
Tripur India Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, was impleaded as respondent No.11 in a suit filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The petitioner was supposed to file an additional written statement on 14.03.2014; it did not and the Court ordered that the suit shall proceed ex parte against the petitioner. On 02.05.2014, the petitioner appeared before the trial court. He continued filing memos of appearance on the next appointed dates and made due appearances before the Court in all subsequent proceedings. For the plaintiff’s default, the suit was dismissed on 14.02.2019.
The plaintiff approached the court for restoration of the suit. Notice of this petition was issued to the present petitioner who appeared and filed a written objection. Subsequently, the suit was restored. However, the present petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the PW on the ground that on 14.03.2014, an order was passed to proceed ex parte against him.
The petitioner filed a petition under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC showing reasons as to why he was absent on 14.03.2014. The trial court, after hearing the counsel of the parties, rejected the petitioner’s application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC observing that allowing it at this belated stage would cause further delay in the disposal of the case which is pending since 2003.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for Petitioner contended that it will amount to a travesty of justice if the petitioner (defendant No.11) is not allowed to contest the case. The Counsel submitted that the trial court never considered the petition filed by the petitioner and the materials produced by him in support of his contentions made out in the said petition; otherwise, the trial court would have come to a different conclusion.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the petition, contending that the suit was instituted in the year 2003 and if after 19 years of its pendency, the defendants are again allowed to participate in the suit by setting aside the ex parte order against them, the suit will again start from the beginning which is likely to cause immense hardship to the plaintiff of the suit who is fighting for its legitimate claim for the last 20 years.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that even though the institution of the case dates to 26.08.2003, there was no material progress in the case till 2019. The present petitioner was given notice of the restoration proceeding despite the Court being aware of the fact that the suit proceeded ex parte against him before the suit was dismissed for default.
The Court observed that there was a default on the part of the plaintiff due to which the suit was dismissed earlier. In these circumstances, justice cannot be denied to the present petitioner (defendant No.11) on the ground that the whole delay in the disposal of the case is attributable to him. The procedure followed by the court is manifestly illegal and unsustainable.
The court observed that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to take part in the rest of the proceedings and the petitioner’s plea cannot be discarded on merely the ground that the case is pending for the last 19 years at the trial court.
The decision of the Court:
The Tripura High Court disposed of the revision petition, directing the trial court to allow the petitioner (defendant No.11) to cross-examine the witnesses and also to adduce evidence if the petitioner so desires.
Case Title: Tripur India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay
Case no.: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 94 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv., and Ms. Ankita Pal, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. D.K. Biswas, Sr. Adv., Mr. G.K. Nama, Adv., and Mr. S.S. Debnath, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
