Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Hoshiar Singh & Ors on 11 February, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th February, 2015
+ FAO. 204/2007 & CM.APPL 7227/2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
versus
HOSHIAR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for
Respondent no.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2007
whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for restoration of the application
under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC was dismissed by the learned
Additional District Judge(ADJ). It may be noted that the appeal
before the ADJ was filed by the Appellant Insurance Company
in May, 2005. Notice of the appeal was ordered to be issued to
the Respondents by an order dated 04.06.2005. In pursuance of
the notice, Respondent no.2 put in appearance as is reflected
from the order passed by the learned ADJ dated 02.08.2005.
The Appellant however, did not take any steps for issuance of
notice to Respondent no.1 for 20.09.2005 or 30.11.2005. On
17.01.2006, it was noted by the learned ADJ that although steps
have not been taken by the Appellant for service of the notice,
yet Respondent no.1 was present in the connected appeal and
Respondent no.1 accepted notice in the instant appeal. None
appeared on behalf of the Appellant on 14.02.2006.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in default.
2. An application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC was moved. When
the application was listed for hearing on 18.03.2006, none
appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Consequently, the
application came to be dismissed by order of even date.
3. Another application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was filed which
was listed before the Court on 24.04.2006 on which notice was
ordered to be issued to the Respondents. A perusal of the Trial
Court record reveals that none appeared on behalf of the
Appellant on 22.05.2006, 18.07.2006 and 24.07.2006. On
28.08.2006, Respondent no.1 appeared in person. It was
reported that Respondent no.2 had left the given address. On
the request of the learned counsel for the Appellant, Respondent
no.2 was ordered to be served again through publication.
4. By the impugned order dated 15.03.2007, the entire conduct of
the Appellant was noted. The learned Additional District Judge
noted the conduct of the Appellant and found that the factual
averment that junior counsel got held up in traffic jam and
reached the Court late was not truthful. It was observed that if
the counsel could not reach on the said date, nothing prevented
the Appellant to move the application on the next day or even
within one week. The learned Additional District Judge
therefore, found that the Appellant had failed to disclose
sufficient cause for restoration of the application for
readmission of the appeal. Consequently, the application for
restoration of appeal and the application for restoration of the
application for readmission of appeal was dismissed.
5. I have myself noted the Appellant's conduct. It is evident that
the Appellant was pursuing the appeal casually and has failed to
disclose sufficient cause for restoration of the application for
readmission of the appeal.
6. No interference is called for in the impugned order.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 11, 2015
pst
