Delhi District Court
Chaman Lal Verma vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 November, 2014
ID No.02401C0392222014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA : ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE (CENTRAL07) : TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI
M. NO.52/2014
Chaman Lal Verma ........... Plaintiff
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ............Defendants
O R D E R
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application for condonation of delay and the application under order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) moved by the plaintiff/applicant.
2. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
3. On 16.08.2014, the plaintiff moved the application u/o 9 Rule 9 of CPC to recall the order dated 22.05.2014 vide which his suit was dismissed for non prosecution, along with the application for condonation of delay.
Application for condonation of delay 1/5 Chaman Lal Verma vs. Union of India
4. Counsel for the defendants opposed the application for condonation of daly and pleaded that no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay and prayed that the application may be dismissed.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that order dated 22.05.2014 was passed in the presence of counsel for the plaintiff. As such, the said order was within the knowledge of the plaintiff that day itself. However, the application was moved on 16.08.2014. Therefore, admittedly, there is a delay in moving the application u/o 9 Rule 9 of CPC.
6. Now the question arises as to whether sufficient cause has been shown by the plaintiff for condonation of delay.
7. Counsel for the plaintiff pleaded that the delay took place due to the plaintiff's ill health and also his mental disturbance on account of medical problems of his wife.
8. In the entire application, the plaintiff has not disclosed the nature of illness of his wife. The plaintiff has also not filed the medical record to substantiate the plea of his illness during the relevant period which prevented him to file the application within period of limitation.
9. It is a settle law that one must approach the court with clean hands. During the course of the arguments, counsel for the defendants no.2 and 3 pleaded that the plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order dated 2/5 Chaman Lal Verma vs. Union of India 22.05.2014 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as the advance copy of the same was supplied to him. But, he is not aware about the fate of the same. In reply, counsel for the plaintiff admitted that the plaintiff filed the appeal before the Registry, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in July, 2014, but did not pursue the same and it remained at that level only. The plaintiff has not disclosed the said material fact in the present application. This fact also belies the plea of the plaintiff that he could not file the application in time due to his illness as well as illness of his wife. As such, the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands.
10. No doubt while deciding the application for condonation of delay a liberal approach should be adopted, however, to enable the court to exercise the discretion and to adopt the said approach, the plaintiff has to make out a case. The conduct of the plaintiff in the present case shows total callousness and negligence. As such, the plaintiff has completely failed to show that there was due diligence on his part to take the prompt steps in filing the application.
11. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to show the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 20.08.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA no. 352/2009 titled as "Delhi Development Authority vs. M/s. Addhar Stumbh"; judgment dated 09.11.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA no. 488/2008 titled as "North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs. Aar Ess Industries"; and the judgment titled as "Tarlochan 3/5 Chaman Lal Verma vs. Union of India Singh vs. Union of India", reported in 2013 V AD (Delhi) 129. Not the least, the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court and has not approached the court with clean hands. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the application u/o 9 Rule 9 of CPC is also liable to be dismissed out rightly. However, I propose to decide the said application on merits also.
Application u/o 9 Rule 9 of CPC
12. On merits, case of the plaintiff is that his earlier counsel namely, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate was negligent in conducting the proceedings. Therefore, he should not suffer for the negligence of his earlier counsel.
13. Perusal of the record reveals that on 12.02.2014 and 07.04.2014, no plea was raised by the plaintiff to that effect. Even on 22.02.2005, no plea was raised by counsel for the plaintiff that the earlier counsel for the plaintiff was negligent in discharge of his duties. Rather, the said counsel filed the vakalatnama and sought an adjournment as a matter of right which was declined by this court vide the detailed order. Therefore, it can be held that the plea of negligence of the counsel raised at this stage is an afterthought. Therefore, the judgment titled as "Maruti Sale Trading Co. vs. Gurdial Chand Khosla Decd. Thru. Lrs." passed by the Humble Delhi High Court in FAO no. 148/2012 is not applicable in the present case. Further, the reputation of the legal profession cannot be allowed to be tarnished at the instance of a defaulting party just to cover up his own mistakes.
4/5 Chaman Lal Verma vs. Union of India
14. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion that even on merits, no sufficient cause has been shown for recall of the order dated 22.05.2014. Therefore, the application is dismissed. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, Today i.e. on 3rd of November, 2014.
(PANKAJ GUPTA)
ADJ(CENTRAL07)/DELHI
03.11.2014
5/5 Chaman Lal Verma vs. Union of India