Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan State Industrial ... vs M/S Sunil Granites Private ... on 22 September, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17736/2019
Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corporation
Ltd. (Riico), Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Through Its Officer In Charge
----Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Sunil Granites Private Limited, 16, Agarwal Colony,
Abu Road, District Sirohi (Rajasthan)
2. Shri Sandeep Agarwal S/o Ss Agarwal, 16, Agarwal
Colony, Abu Road, District Sirohi (Rajasthan)-307026
3. Shri Shanker Lal Agarwal S/o Shri Ramprashad Agarwal,
Gyanji Ka Chowk, Gangapur, Bhilwara (Rajasthan)-
311801
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Wadhawa Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Salecha
Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Judgment / Order
22/09/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the orders dated 07.08.2019, 27.08.2019 & 24.09.2019 passed by
the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur (Rajasthan) in Case No/CIS No
CMNC-7/2019 (360/2019) titled as RIICO Versus M/s. Sunil
Granite Pvt Ltd.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has filed an application under Section 31(i)(aa) and
Section 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 against the
respondents for recovery of the outstanding amount of
(2 of 4) [CW-17736/2019]
Rs.1,07,25,586/- against the loan disbursed for setting up of
factory.
Learned counsel submitted that the application filed by the
petitioner before the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur
came to be transferred to Commercial Court-1, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur.
Learned counsel submitted that the matter was pending for
service for considerable time and as such after service on the
respondents, petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rule
1(1) of CPC read with Order 7 Rule 14 and Section 151 of CPC to
place on record the original documents, photocopies of which were
filed before the Court below.
Learned counsel submitted that the said application dated
27.03.2019, was allowed by the Court below vide its order dated
10.05.2019 and, thereafter, the Court fixed the matter on
29.05.2019 for recording evidence.
Learned counsel submitted that on 16.07.2019, the
petitioner filed another application under Order 11 Rule 1(1) of
CPC read with Order 7 Rule 14 and Section 151 of CPC to place on
record additional documents, i.e., Sale letter dated 25.10.2010,
Deed of conveyance dated 02.11.2010, Notarial proceedings and
possession handing over report dated 02.11.2010, letter issued by
RIICO dated 16.11.2012 and legal notice sent to guarantors.
Learned counsel submitted that the Court below on
20.07.2019 allowed the application filed by the petitioner subject
to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/-. The matter was posted for
evidence on 07.08.2019.
Learned counsel submitted that on 07.08.2019, the
petitioner had filed affidavit in evidence of witnesses and also filed
(3 of 4) [CW-17736/2019]
an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Learned counsel further submitted that it was informed to
the Court that the cost of Rs.3,000/- will be paid after lunch
hours, but the petitioner came to know that the Court below on
07.08.2019 recalled the order of 20.07.2019 and recorded a
finding that no cost was paid, as such the order permitting the
petitioner to place some documents on record was recalled and
the documents, which were kept in Part-C were ordered to be kept
in Part-D.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner moved an
application under Section 151 of CPC for recalling of the order,
however, the Court below has dismissed the said application also
on 24.09.2019.
Learned counsel submitted that there was no intention of
flouting the order of the Court below and due to
miscommunication between the counsels, the cost of Rs.3,000/-
was not paid before pre lunch session on 07.08.2019. Learned
counsel further submitted that the Court below ought to have
allowed the application filed by the petitioner to recall its order
and the bona-fide of the petitioner was to be seen as to whether
the petitioner was delaying the proceedings or it was not
interested in paying the cost.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the
interest of justice, this Court may set aside the impugned orders
and can further impose a reasonable cost to be paid to the
respondents. Learned counsel further submitted that the
respondents did not suffer in the present case as the application
filed by the petitioner is for recovery of the money.
(4 of 4) [CW-17736/2019]
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the orders
and the petitioner ought to have paid the cost as was directed by
the Court below and since he did pay the cost, the Court below
was constrained to pass the orders.
I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that the application has been filed by the
petitioner for recovery of the money and, further, in order to prove
its case, the petitioner filed an application for bringing certain
documents on record and the same was allowed by the Court as
well.
This Court finds that only on account of non-payment of cost
of Rs.3,000/-, the Court below should not have recalled the earlier
order dated 20.07.2019 and at least one opportunity should have
been given to the petitioner to pay the cost. This Court deems it
proper to set aside the orders dated 07.08.2019, 27.08.2019 &
24.09.2019 and the same are hereby set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is
required to pay cost to the respondents of Rs.15,000/- on the next
date of hearing. It is made clear that only on payment of the cost
to the counsel appearing for the respondents, the Court below will
proceed further in the matter.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Sanjay Kumawat-67
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
