Uttarakhand High Court
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd vs Food Corporation Of India on 5 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 581 OF 2023
05TH MARCH, 2024
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. .....Appellant.
Versus
Food Corporation of India ....Respondent.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Mohd.
Shafy, learned counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, learned
counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)
The appellant has come up in appeal against the
order dated 25.10.2023, passed by the Commercial Court,
Dehradun, whereby the restoration application of the
appellant has been dismissed.
2. The case made out by the appellant is that the
appellant filed a civil suit bearing O.S. No.433 of 2016,
against the respondent for recovery of Rs.79,89,983.20,
which was pending before the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.),
Dehradun. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application
seeking transfer of the suit to the Commercial Court on the
ground that the matter was related to the commercial
transaction. Consequently, learned IInd Additional Civil Judge
(Dehradun), vide order dated 06.07.2023, transferred the
said suit to the Commercial Court, Dehradun, and the same
was re-numbered as Suit No.130 of 2023.
3. When the matter was listed before the Commercial
Court, Dehradun, on 08.09.2023, counsel for the appellant
could not appear before the Court due to some personal
reasons. On 01.09.2023, the counsel for the appellant met
with an accident, and he remained hospitalized for a period of
three days, and on 08.09.2023, he visited the doctor for
further follow up. When he reached the Court on 08.09.2023,
he came to know that the Suit has been dismissed for non-
prosecution. On 12.09.2023, counsel for the appellant applied
for a certified copy of the order dated 08.09.2023. The
certified copy of the order dated 08.09.2023 was notified on
the notice board on 04.10.2023, therefore, a period of
twenty-two days was to be added in the limitation, and the
period of limitation to file the restoration application was
extended upto 30.10.2023. On 25.10.2023, counsel for the
appellant moved an application for restoration, which was
registered as Misc. Case No.163 of 2023, stating therein that
the certified copy was applied on 12.09.2023, and the same
was notified on the notice board on 04.10.2023. Thus, the
appellant was very much entitled to file the restoration
application upto 30.10.2023. However, the restoration
application was rejected on the ground that the same was
barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. A perusal of the above facts further shows that
after applying for certified copy of the order dated
08.09.2023, the same was notified on the notice board on
04.10.2023, and for this purpose, twenty-two days had to be
added in the limitation, which has not been done in the
present case. The delay is of only 17 days, which ought to
have been condoned.
5. In view of the above, the present appeal is being
allowed, and the order dated 25.10.2023 is being set-aside,
and the delay of 17 days in filing the restoration application is
condoned, and the order dated 08.09.2023 is also set-aside,
and the Suit is being restored to its original number.
6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 05th March, 2024
NISHANT
