Delhi High Court
Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha ... vs Charanjit Singh Bhasin on 1 February, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 12th January, 2010
Date of Order: 01st February, 2010
CM(M) No. 719/2008 & CM No. 8628/2008
% 01.02.2010
Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Regd.
Thru. Secy. Sardar Gurjeet Singh ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
Versus
Charanjit Singh Bhasin ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sumant, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
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?
JUDGMENT
By this petition the petitioner has assailed an order dated 28th April,
2008 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller allowed an application under
Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoring an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and
restored the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to its original number subject to
cost of Rs.500/-.
2. This application for restoration of application under Order 9 Rule 13
CPC was made by the respondent giving circumstances under which he personally
could not appear in the Court and his Counsel did not follow his instructions properly
and did not appear in the Court. He made a complaint against his Counsel and
engaged another Counsel and filed the present application. The order allowing
application is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the Court ignored the
judgment delivered by this Court that the litigant himself has to be vigilant and blame
cannot be put on the Counsel.
3. A perusal of Order would show that the learned ARC had taken into
account the fact that mother of the respondent had died a few days before the date of
hearing [hearing was within the thirteenth (tehnravi kriya) day] and that was a
sufficient ground for non appearance of the respondent on that date. The learned
ARC had also gone through the record of illness of the respondent and after
considering both the aspects; death of his mother and his own illness allowed the
application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.
4. Under Article 227 of Constitution of India this Court does not act as a
Court of appeal and cannot substitute its own decision and conclusion after
appreciation of facts in place of conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. The order
was within jurisdiction of the trial Court and the trial Court after appreciating the
documents had found that there was sufficient ground for non appearance of the
respondent. I find no reason that this Court should substitute its own appreciation
and opinion about the sufficiency of the grounds, while considering a petition under
Article 227. I, therefore find no merits in the petition. The petition is hereby
dismissed.
February 01, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
