Delhi High Court
Vijendra Singh vs A Bandyopadhyay & Ors on 25 April, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:25.04.2012
+ C.R.P. 54/2012 & CM No. 7462/2012
VIJENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Petitioner in person.
Versus
A BANDYOPADHYAY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The impugned order is dated 24.02.2012. The appellate Court had
allowed the appeal against the dismissal of the application filed by the
defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').
2 Record shows that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and
compensation; he is the employee of the defendants. His contention was
that his name should be mentioned as an author of the project titled as
'Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding'; compensation had also
been claimed; contention being that he was the author of this research
project. Ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 21.01.2005.
Present application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code along with an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred on
14.05.2008 and 04.12.2009 by defendants No. 1, 3 & 4; contention was
that they learnt about the ex-parte judgment and decree on 21.04.2008
only when the plaintiff visited the office of defendant No. 4 informing
him about the same; it was only then a certified copy of the order was
obtained through new counsel as the earlier counsel had not informed
them about the fate of the case; it was only that they learnt about this
ex-parte judgment; this information was retrieved by them only on
25.04.2008.
3 The trial Court did not entertain the application filed by the
applicants; it was of the view that sufficient cause has not been
explained by the defendants for not contesting the suit on its merits. In
appeal the impugned order had set aside the order of the trial Court.
4 Record shows that the earlier counsel contesting the case of the
defendants was Mr. Lalal Chaudhary and he was appearing before the
trial Court on certain dates which have been noted as 20.05.2005 and
17.09.2005; he had sought time to file reply; thereafter he stopped
appearing; defendants No. 2 & 3 are Government bodies; their
contention was that the they had engaged a counsel and they were under
a bonafide impression that their case was being pursued diligently; the
impugned judgment had noted these facts in the correct perspective;
subject to payment of costs, the Court had felt it appropriate that a
valuable right of the defendants would be lost in case they are not
allowed to plead their case; ex-parte judgment dated 21.01.2008 had
been set aside.
5 The averments made in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of
the Code have furnished a justifiable explanation for non-appearance of
the defendants as their contention was that their Advocate did not
inform them about his defaulting appearance and they learnt about this
ex-parte judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008 only on 21.04.2008
when the plaintiff visited their office and this information was retrieved
by them on 25.04.2008.
6 Exercise of discretion by the appellate Court in favour of the
defendants giving them a right to contest the petition on merits in this
background suffers from no infirmity; it was a fair discretion.
7 Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 25, 2012
A
