Delhi State Industrial ... vs Shri Ashish Anand & Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 951 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. By this order, I would be disposing of IA 12455/95, being an application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC, IA 12456/95, being an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and IA 12457/95, being an application seeking to stay of operation of judgment/decree dated 14.4.1986.

2. The relevant facts in brief may be noted :

The petitioner, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. had filed the above petition, seeking inter alia to have the award 18.4.1982 made rule of the Court. Notices of filing of the award were issued and the respondent/applicant filed objections to the said award vide IA 3117/83, against making award rule of the Court. The said application was dismissed in default on 20.7.1984 but on the application of respondent/applicant, IA 3117/83 was restored. Pleadings were completed in IA 3117/83 and issues were framed on 15.11.1985. As none appeared on behalf of respondent/applicant on 4.4.1986, IA 3177/83 was again dismissed in default. By order of the same date, the learned Judge finding no infirmity in the award made the same rule of the Court and passed a decree in terms thereof.

3. The case of the respondent/applicant in these applications is that the applicant had engaged one Sh. S.K. Bhatia, who assured him that after filing of the objections, the cases are not heard immediately and he would be attending to the same. The applicant contends that it was only on 1.11.1995 that he came to know about a judgment in terms of award having been passed on 14.4.1986, when notice of the execution proceedings was received by him on 1.11.1985. Learned Counsel urged that the applicant had completely relied on his Advocate. He says that immediately without loss of time, he had the file inspected and engaged another Counsel and filed objections by way of present applications on 29.11.1995 for setting aside the ex parte award. IA 12456/95 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) is moved for condensation of delay in moving the application for setting aside the ex parte award, after a period of 9 years.

4. I am not persuaded that the applicant has made out any ground for setting aside the ex parte award. Apart from the obligation, which a Counsel has to attend to the case, a litigant and party also has to be diligent about has own case. In this case, it goes without saying that for a period of nearly 9 years, the respondent/applicant took no steps to enquire about the outcome of his case. It is really a case where the respondent like Rip Van Winkle has woken from deep slumber. Although, no grounds are made out for setting aside the ex parte award, learned Counsel addressed for some time even on the merits of objections. On a perusal of the award, I find that this is a case of hire purchase agreement where the claim of the petitioner for payment of default charges amounting to Rs. 1,77,119.13 paise had been dis allowed by the Arbitrator. Not only this, the Arbitrator also awarded interest @ 12% per annum also as against the claim of 16% per annum. Learned Counsel attempted to urge that respondent was manufacturing the product only at the behest of the petitioner and as per the guide lines of the petitioner Corporation. He submitted that no adjustment was granted in respect of certain amounts owned to the respondent/applicant. The Arbitrator found that the plea for adjectment raised by the respondent relating to other transaction is not covered under the hire purchase agreement and thus not related to the present transaction. In any event, this would be going to the merits of disputes. This would even be beyond the province of the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. In the result, I find no ground for entertaining the application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC. Even otherwise on merits, no case is made out for interference.

IAs 12455, 12456, 12457 are dismissed.

5. Applications dismissed.