Delhi High Court
Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs Accessories World Car Audio Pvt. ... on 6 September, 2019
$~ 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 6th September, 2019
+ FAO 428/2017
SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rahul Malhotra & Mr.
Varun Garg, Advs.
versus
ACCESSORIES WORLD CAR AUDIO PVT. LTD. & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Respondent no.3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. In the course of proceedings arising out of civil suit (no.
827/2016) of the appellant seeking recovery of Rs. 89,39,728/- with
interest pendent lite and future besides costs, originally instituted in
this Court in 2015 but transferred to the district courts on account of
change of pecuniary jurisdiction, the defendants had moved an
application under Order XI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying for liberty to deliver the
interrogatories to the plaintiff of the suit i.e. the appellant. It appears
that the said application was contested, the arguments having been
heard. The learned Additional District Judge then in seisin of the
matter pronounced a detailed order on 28.07.2017 granting the prayer
in the said application calling upon the plaintiff (appellant) to respond
to the interrogatories on oath within a period of ten days of the said
order. It further appears that the case by that time had already entered
the stage of plaintiff's evidence for which it was scheduled for
05.09.2017 by corresponding short order passed on 28.07.2017. The
plaintiff's submission is that the evidence on affidavit had already
come on record and it was only to be formally tendered.
2. On 05.09.2017, there was default on the part of the plaintiff,
there being no appearance and also no compliance with the direction
for response to the interrogatories. This led to the suit being dismissed
in default and for non-prosecution.
3. The plaintiff's moved an application for restoration on
08.09.2017 taking a plea that there was default on the part of the
counsel to ascertain the status and as to the next date of hearing, the
order on the application for interrogatories to be served having been
pronounced at the end of the day. The application was supported by
the affidavits of the two counsel. It was resisted and eventually
dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.10.2017, the trial judge
apparently not being impressed with the grounds taken.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the said order dated 24.10.2017,
declining restoration of the suit, the present appeal was filed.
5. Having heard the submission, this Court finds no good reasons
as to why the case should not have been revived and restored. The
suit which was instituted in the year 2015 was being prosecuted
diligently by the plaintiff till the date on which the default occurred.
The reasons for the default have been properly explained. The lack of
knowledge on the part of the plaintiff occurring on account of lack of
proper vigilance on the part of the counsel cannot result in the suit
which had reached at such stage being junked. Be that as it may, the
opposite party will have to be suitably compensated.
6. The impugned order is set aside. The application for restoration
is allowed subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/-. The suit shall be proceeded
further in accordance with law by the trial court. The parties are
directed to appear before the trial Judge on 14th October, 2019.
7. Needless to add, as a result of the revival of the proceedings in
the civil suit, it will be the obligation of the appellant (i.e. the plaintiff
of the suit) to abide by the directions for answering the interrogatories
for which ten days' time from today is granted.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2019
nk
