Synergy Multitech Ltd. vs Hcl Infosystems Ltd.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1246 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 220/2012

%                                                      7th March, 2014

SYNERGY MULTITECH LTD.                                 ......Appellant
                Through:                 None


                          VERSUS

HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD.                                     ...... Respondent

                  Through:               Mr.K.G. Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This first appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC against the

judgment of the court below dated 9.9.2011 by which the application under

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed has been dismissed. The application under Order

9 Rule 13 sought recalling of the ex parte judgment dated 9.9.2011 by which

suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed for a sum of Rs. 15,49,994/-

along with interest @ 16% per annum on account of computer goods and

peripherals supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant

and for which a cheque of Rs. 15,50,000/- was given (rounded up figure) by

the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The impugned order shows that the appellant/defendant was duly

served in the suit. Appellant/defendant appeared through counsel in the suit.

Appellant/defendant through its advocate filed with written statement, but

subsequently failed to appear.

3. Case of the appellant/defendant in its application under Order 9 Rule

13 CPC is that its counsel was not contacting it, but this has been

disbelieved by the court below because court below notes that the earlier

counsel Mr. A. Alam placed a copy of the notice dated 24.7.2010 along with

postal receipts sent to the appellants showing that he had no option but to

withdraw from the case because appellant/defendant was not giving

instructions. Therefore, the court below has rightly disbelieved the case of

the appellant/defendant that the Advocate did not inform the

appellant/defendant of the case and wrongly stopped appearing.

4. I completely agree with the aforesaid conclusions of the court below

for dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is

therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

MARCH 07, 2014                                     VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara