Sitaram Chaudaha vs M/S. R.P.G. Transmission Ltd. A ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7202 MP

                                                         1
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                 ON THE 12th OF MAY, 2022

                                          MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 950 of 2020

                              Between:-
                              SITARAM CHAUDAHA S/O LATE SHRI VIPIN
                              CHAND CHAUDAHA , AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
                              OCCUPATION: PROP M/S. SITARAM BROTHERS
                              R/O. 1256, NAPIER TOWN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPLICANT
                              (BY SHRI R.K. SANGHI, ADVOCATE)

                              AND

                              M/S. R.P.G. TRANSMISSION LTD. A PUBLIC
                              LIMITED CO. / P.O. DEORI PANAGAR (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT


                            This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                          ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

This M.C.C. has been filed for restoration of the company petition No. 4/2003, which was dismissed on 23.01.2017 for want of prosecution.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the company petition was admitted by this Court on 21.11.2003 and reply was also filed by the respondent in the year 2005 and it was riped for hearing. He further submits that arguing counsel in the company petition was Shri J.P. Sanghi, who by the time Signature SAN Not Verified fell ill and his son became busy in his treatment, therefore, nobody remained Digitally signed by KUMARI PALLAVI present on the date when the case was called for hearing. Hence, he prays for SINHA Date: 2022.05.13 15:22:10 IST

restoration of the company petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent by filing the written reply denied the allegations of the restoration petition and opposed the prayer for restoration of the petition. He further submits that by the time the grievance of the applicant has already been fulfilled, as has been mentioned in para 5 of the reply filed by the respondent. Hence, he submits that no purpose would be served to restore the company petition and he prays for dismissal of the restoration application.

Heard counsel for the both the parties.

Apparently, the counsel for the respondent has not been able to rebut the plea of illness of the arguing counsel taken by the applicant in the application,

which being personal ground of the counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and certainly on the date of hearing, the applicant himself was not required to remain present and only the arguing counsel had to take care of the company petition as has been held in the judgment given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq & another Vs. Munshilal & another reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 whereby it has been held that for the fault of the counsel, the parties should not be made to suffer.

Accordingly, by taking lenient view, this application for restoration of Comp. No. 4/2003 deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid to Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate for the respondent by the applicant within 15 working days from today.

Hence, order dated 23.01.2017 is hereby recalled and Company Petition No.4/2003 is restored to its original number.

Subject to aforesaid, MCC stands allowed and disposed of. A typed copy of this order be kept in the record of Company Petition

No.4/2003, as per rules.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE Pallavi