Capt. Dinesh Singh Dhillion vs Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5616 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CM(M) No. 993/2014
%                                                   10th November , 2014

CAPT. DINESH SINGH DHILLION                   ......Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Pratap Singh Parmar, Adv.


                           VERSUS

PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LTD.                                ...... Respondent
                 Through:

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No. 18245/2014 (delay in refiling)

      For the reasons stated in the application delay in refiling is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.


CM(M) No. 993/2014 & CM No.18244/2014 (stay)

1.             By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

defendant no.1/petitioner impugns the order of the trial court dated

19.l5.2014 which has refused to recall the earlier orders by which




CMM 993/2014                                                                   Page 1 of 4
 petitioner/defendant no.1 was proceeded exparte on 1.9.2010 and his

defence was struck off on 17.1.2012.


2.             I find that in this petition petitioner/defendant no.1 has

deliberately not filed the pleadings in the suit, and which is a suit for

recovery of monies of Rs.15,25,000/- which has been filed by the respondent

herein/plaintiff in the suit against the various defendants including the

petitioner/defendant no.1.    Defendant no.1 in the suit being the present

petitioner is sued as the principal debtor and defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the

suit were guarantors. Since no pleadings have been filed before this Court

hence I only guess that petitioner/defendant no.1 who is a pilot obviously

must have been sued by the respondent company-Pawan Hans Helicopters

Ltd. because the petitioner/defendant no.1 would have left the services

earlier than the services period prescribed in the service bond.


3.             I fail to understand the tendency amongst litigants and lawyers

who deliberately conceal the pleadings of the suit inasmuch as the pleadings

in the suit are very necessary for this Court to get a complete picture of the

issues in the case.


4.             At this stage, counsel for the petitioner, who was not present

when the judgment dictation commenced appears and confirms that the suit
CMM 993/2014                                                               Page 2 of 4
 is for the recovery of monies because the petitioner/pilot/defendant no.1 had

left the services of respondent no.1/plaintiff earlier than the expiry of the

service bond period.

5.             Though the petitioner/defendant no.1 may seem to be

technically correct in arguing that court has wrongly dismissed the

application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908

(CPC) of the petitioner/defendant no.1 on account of failure of the petitioner

to secure appearance of his erstwhile attorney, because the physical presence

of the attorney of the petitioner/defendant no.1 rightly cannot be enforced by

the petitioner/defendant no.1, however, the issue which really requires

consideration is that the petitioner/defendant no.1 admittedly was proceeded

exparte way back on 1.9.2010 and the subject application was filed much

later only in October 2012 and I do not find any reason whatsoever as to

why the petitioner/defendant no.1 for over two years did not take any steps

to check up the position with respect to the recovery suit filed against him,

that too for a substantial amount of Rs.15,25,000/- with interest. Obviously,

actions of the petitioner/defendant no.1 are malafide and the only object is to

delay and drag the suit for recovery of monies which prima facie seems to

be payable by petitioner/defendant no.1 on account of his breaching the

CMM 993/2014                                                                Page 3 of 4
 service bond condition. Obviously, if disputes have already arisen between

the petitioner/defendant no.1 and his attorney holder on account of the

attorney holder being related to his wife, surely, the petitioner/defendant

no.1 should have thereafter been extra careful and should have taken

reasonable precautions to find out about the progress of the suit at least at

some infrequent intervals and surely therefore there is an unexplained period

of about 2 years from when the petitioner/defendant no.1 was proceeded

exparte and the subject application was filed in October 2012 which does

not entitle the petitioner to have the orders proceeding him exparte and

striking off his defence recalled.


6.             Dismissed.




NOVEMBER 10, 2014                           VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib