Senbo Engineering Ltd vs Kla Const Technologies Pvt Ltd
2017 Latest Caselaw 100 Del

$~12
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      RFA 844/2015 & CM 30482/2015 (for condonation of delay
       in re-filing the appeal)
       SENBO ENGINEERING LTD                        ..... Appellant
                    Through : None.

                          versus

       KLA CONST TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ..... Respondent
                    Through : None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                          ORDER

% 07.02.2017

1. The present appeal has been placed before the Court by the Registrar, who has recorded in the order dated 20.1.2017 that none had appeared before him for the appellant and as the process fee was not filed, notice could not be issued to the respondent.

2. It is pertinent to note that on 21.11.2016, when the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 340 days in re-filing the appeal had come up for consideration before this court, none had appeared for the appellant. Despite the same, no adverse orders were passed. Prior thereto, on 9.5.2016, last opportunity was granted to the appellant to effect service on the respondent and it was directed that subject to the appellant depositing the entire decretal amount with upto date interest, there shall be stay of the execution. The delay of 340 days in re-filing the appeal was also condoned on the said date on payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent.

3. As per the office report, the appellant had failed to file the process fee and deposit the decretal amount. It was therefore clarified on 21.11.2016, that the respondent would be entitled to seek execution of the impugned judgment and decree in accordance with law. It was also noticed on the said date that the appellant had filed the process fee on 11.8.2016 which was returned by the Registry with an observation that no permission was granted to do so. The appellant was therefore directed to file the process fee afresh within two weeks for effecting service on the respondent, returnable before the Registrar on 20.1.2017. Simultaneously, it was made clear that if the appellant does not file the process fee within the stipulated timeline or the process fee remains under objections for any reason, then the present appeal shall be dismissed on the next date.

4. Despite the aforesaid position, the appellant did not take any steps to file process fee for effecting service on the respondent. The said position clearly emerges from the order passed by the Registrar on 20.1.2017, on which date also, none was present for the appellant. The position remains the same even today. None is present for the appellant.

5. As a result, the present appeal is dismissed in default and for non- prosecution, along with the pending application.

6. The trial court record be released forthwith.

HIMA KOHLI, J FEBRUARY 07, 2017 sk/mk