Delhi High Court
M/S. Amartex Industries Ltd. vs Sh. Navin Kumar on 4 September, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M)No. 1393/2012 & CM No. 21609/2012 (stay)
% 4th September , 2014
M/S. AMARTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.Shantanu and Mr. P. Shankar,
Advocates.
VERSUS
SH. NAVIN KUMAR ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gyan Prakash and Ms. Neeraj,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of
India impugning the order of the trial court dated 3.10.2012 by which the
trial court refused to recall the order dated 11.8.2010 closing the right of the
petitioner/defendant to file the written statement and also refused to set aside
the ex parte order dated 1.3.2011. Applications for recalling of the orders
dated 11.8.2010 and 1.3.2011 were filed alongwith the applications for
condonation of delay inasmuch as the applications for recalling of the orders
dated 11.8.2010 and 1.3.2011 were filed only on 3.11.2011.
CM(M) NO. 1393/2012 Page 1 of 3
2. The subject suit is a suit for recovery of Rs.73,997/- filed by the
respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant company on account of
manufacturing and installation by the respondent/plaintiff of sign/display
boards for the petitioner/defendant.
3. The grounds given for condonation of delay and for setting
aside of the orders closing the right to file written statement and recalling of
the orders were two-fold. Firstly, entire blame was laid on the previous
counsel who was conducting the case for the petitioner/defendant and the
second reason given was of change of the legal set up of the petitioner
company. These aspects have been rejected by the trial court by making the
following observations in paras 9 and 10 of the impugned order dated
3.10.2012 and which paras read as under:-
"9. The defendant has laid the entire blame on his previous counsel.
However, it is clear that the defendant was itself supposed to be vigilant in
keeping a track of the proceedings. It is clear that none of the officials of
the defendant company had appeared before the court on any date of
hearing. The least which could have been done by the defendant was to
make regular inquiries from its counsel. However, it appears that the
defendant did not even contact his previous counsel so as to ascertain the
progress of the case. No steps were taken by the defendant for preparation
of the written statement.
10. Even the alleged plea of lapses on the part of the previous counsel is not
substantial. No complaint has been made by the defendant to the Bar
Council of Delhi alleging any professional misconduct or negligence on
CM(M) NO. 1393/2012 Page 2 of 3
the part of the counsel. There is also no material on record to substantiate
the plea of the defendant regarding change in set up of the defendant
company. It is clear that the defendant was itself negligent in defending
the suit."
4. I completely agree with the aforesaid conclusions because not
only no complaint has been filed before the bar council against that counsel
but even no notice has also been issued to the earlier advocate on the ground
that he allegedly had committed negligence in not informing the petitioner-
company. Also, only a self-serving averment of change of legal set up was
made without giving any detailed particulars / facts with respect to what was
the change, who were the officers who were changed, the period in which
the change took place as also other related facts and so on and which plea
was also not supported by any document whatsoever.
5. In view of the above, there is no error in the impugned order,
and the present petition is hence dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their
own costs.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
