Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Hari Dass vs Parkash Chand on 30 November, 2022
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli
1
ITEM NO.1747 COURT NO.13 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 15703/2021
HARI DASS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PARKASH CHAND Respondent(s)
(Appeal under Order VIII Rule 6(5)
IA No. 80504/2021 - APPEAL AGAINST REGISTRARS ORDER XV RULE 5
IA No. 80505/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AGAINST
REGISTRAR ORDER)
Date : 30-11-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
[IN CHAMBER]
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR
Ms. Parul Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Jugal Kishore Prasad, Adv.
Ms. Shradha Saran, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Adv.
M/S. K J John And Co, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. This Chamber appeal is filed against the lodgment order dated 21.08.2019, passed by the Ld. Registrar.
2. As per the office report dated 03.03.2022, the civil appeal was dismissed in default in terms of the order dated 22.07.2010. Thereafter, the appellant moved applications for restoration, substitution and condonation of delay (IA No. 2-4 of Signature Not Verified 2012), that were dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.01.2013, Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2022.12.07 17:13:15 IST Reason: on the ground that counsel for the appellant had not filed proof of payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the counsel for the other 2 side.
3. The aforesaid applications were allowed vide order dated 11.01.2013. The delay in moving the applications was condoned subject to the appellant paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the counsel for the respondent within a period of six weeks. It was clarified that in the event, the costs are not paid within six weeks, the application would stand dismissed. The period of six weeks reckoned from 11.01.2013, would have expired on 22.02.2013. Admittedly, the cost was not deposited within the time granted.
4. The Chamber appeal comprises of 3 paras, none of which explain the date and the manner in which the cost was purportedly be tendered to the counsel for the respondent, who categorically denies receipt of costs or refusal on his part to receive the cost, as contended by counsel for the appellant.
5. Ideally, the chamber appeal ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, in the interest of justice, last opportunity of two weeks is granted to counsel for the appellant to place on record proof of dispatch receipt of the draft of Rs. 5,000/-, by registered post to the counsel for the respondent. The documents shall be filed on an affidavit within four weeks with a copy to counsel for respondent who may file a reply in opposition thereto. In the event, the affidavit is not filed within four weeks along with relevant documents, the Chamber appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed without further reference to the Court.
(SONIA GULATI) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT BRANCH OFFICER