Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Sturdy Industries Ltd vs M/S Isotech Electrical And Civil ... on 30 May, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
OMP(M) No. 32 of 2014 in CS
.
No. 65 of 2012
Decided on : 30.5.2016
M/s Sturdy Industries Ltd. .....Plaintiff/non-applicant.
of
Versus
M/s Isotech Electrical and Civil Projects (P) Ltd. and another.....
rt ......Defendants/applicants.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the plaintiff/non-applicant: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate.
For the defendants/applicants: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary and Mr.
Vinod Thakur, Advocates.
Sureshwar Thakur, J (Oral)
The plaintiff/non-applicant (for short "the plaintiff) had instituted a suit against the defendants/applicants (for short "the defendants") for recovery of Rs.60,06,499.24 alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. On 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP...2...
service standing ordered to be effectuated upon the .
defendants through appropriate steps being taken by the plaintiff inclusive of the latter's filing RAD covers within a week therefrom, steps whereof on standing taken by the of plaintiff the Registry of this Court further transmitted the relevant RAD covers besides the summons onwards to the agencies rt concerned, whereupon the process server concerned on receipt of the apposite summons recorded an endorsement thereon of on his concerting to effectuate service upon the defendants through ordinary mode comprised in his despite twice visiting the premises of the defendants, his thereupon detecting their commercial premises being locked rendering hence his efforts to effectuate service upon them through ordinary mode to prove abortive. However, given the endorsement made by the postman concerned in the apposite RAD cover of the defendants refusing to accept service, this Court on 25.4.2013 construed of the endorsement recorded therein by the postman concerned of the defendants refusing to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...3...
accept notice constituting a vivid display of theirs standing .
served whereas with the defendants not recording their appearance before this Court either in person or through their respective authorized representative besides through a of counsel holding an apposite empowerment from them constraining it to hence direct of theirs being proceeded rt against ex-parte. In sequel to the defendants standing ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte, ex-parte evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of the averments constituted in the plaint stood recorded. On strength of the ex-parte evidence adduced by the plaintiff an ex-parte decree was rendered by this Court on 2.7.2013. The defendants stand aggrieved by the ex-parte decree rendered by this Court on 2.7.2013.
2. The defendants have instituted two applications before this Court. One application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree rendered by this Court on 2.7.2013 and another application accompanying it constituted under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay as stands begotten in the purported ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...4...
belated institution of the application by the defendants .
under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-
parte decree of this Court of 2.7.2013. The aforesaid applications stood replied by the plaintiff. On the of contentious pleadings of the parties, this Court on 17.10.2014 struck the following issues for consideration:
rt "(1) Whether the respondents were not served in Civil Suit No. 65 of 2012 on 31.12.2012 as alleged? OPR (2) Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause which prevented it from filing the application within the prescribed period of limitation? OPR.
(3) Relief. "
3. On the aforesaid apposite issues as had come to be struck by this Court on 17.10.2014, the witnesses of the applicants/defendants stepped into the witness box in support of the averments constituted in the apposite applications whereupon they rendered a deposition in tandem thereof. The deposition of the process server of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...5...
area concerned whereat the commercial establishment of .
the defendants was located has underscored therein of his on two occasions visiting the commercial establishment of the defendants his thereupon discovering their apposite of establishments standing locked. The said deposition of the process server concerned constituted in his examination-in-
rt chief remains un-concerted to be shred off its efficacy by the learned counsel for the plaintiff by subjecting him to a relevant cross-examination. In sequel it would be inapt to draw an inference therefrom of at the time when the process server concerned visited the commercial establishment of the defendants his thereupon detecting their apposite premises standing locked, standing stained with a vice of falsity. Obviously since service upon the defendants had not come to be effectuated through ordinary mode yet the process server concerned holding the summons recording thereon an apposite endorsement of his despite twice visiting the commercial establishment of the defendants of his thereupon detecting their apposite establishment being ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...6...
locked, apposite summons whereof when stood transmitted .
to this Court, yet no assay stood endeavored by the plaintiff for seeking from this Court on its apposite application preferred hereat for substituted service being ordered to be of effectuated upon the defendants. Contrarily, this Court had on the anvil of an endorsement recorded on the RAD rt covers by the postman concerned of the defendants refusing to accept service, concluded therefrom of refusal of acceptance by the defendants of RAD covers from the postman concerned tantamounted to theirs standing served whereupon it concluded of when there was omission on the part of the defendants to either appear hereat in person or through their authorized representative besides through a counsel holding an apposite empowerment from them, it rendered an order of the defendants being proceeded against ex-parte. The construction as made by this Court on the anchor of an endorsement made by the postman concerned of the area whereat the commercial establishment of the defendants ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...7...
stood located of the defendants refusing acceptance .
thereof whereupon it proceeded to hold of their refusal tantamounting to theirs standing served in accordance with law, further thereupon its holding of its omitting to of record its appearance before this Court either in person or through their authorized representative besides through a rt counsel holding an apposite empowerment from them, hence enjoining it to render an order of theirs being directed to be proceeded against ex-parte, is palpably erroneous besides fallacious engendered by a gross misreading of the provisions of Order V Rule 8 of the C.P.C.
The relevant provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter.
"(i) Where the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted, or has an agent resident within that jurisdiction who is empowered to accept the service of the summons, the summons shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be delivered or sent either to the proper officer to be served by him or one of his subordinates or to such courier services as are approved by the Court.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP
...8...
(2) The proper officer may be an officer of a .
Court other than that in which the suit is instituted, and, where he is such an officer, the summons may be sent to him in such manner as the Court may direct.
(3) The services of summons may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof by of registered post acknowledgement due, addressed to the defendant or his agent rt empowered to accept the service or by speed post or by such courier services as are approved by the High Court or by the Court referred to in sub-rule (1) or by any other means of transmission of documents (including fax message or electronic mail service) provided by the rules made by the High Court:
Provided that the service of summons under this sub-rule shall be made at the expenses of the plaintiff.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), where a defendant resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted, and the Court directs that the service of summons on that defendant may be made by such mode of service of summons a is referred to in sub-rule (3) (except by registered post acknowledgement due), the provisions of rule 21 shall not apply."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP
...9...
4. In other words the foisting of tenability by this Court .
to the apposite endorsement borne on the RAD covers especially when its adoption earlier by this Court for the reasons alluded hereinafter is not the statutorily approbated mode for the ordering by this Court qua effectuation of service upon of defendants herein who uncontrovertedly reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court hence is per se legally inapt, as rt a corollary the imputation of validity by this Court to the apposite endorsement made thereupon by the postman concerned whereupon this Court proceeded to, for omission on the part of the defendants to record their presence before this Court either in person or through their authorized representative besides a counsel holding an apposite empowerment from them, renders the apposite order of theirs being proceeded against ex-parte, being grossly erroneous. Preponderantly when the statutorily approbated mode of effectuation of service upon the defendants who undisputedly reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is through ordinary mode comprised in the engagement of the process serving agency of the Court ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...10...
concerned for hence completing service upon the .
apposite defendants whereas with the process server concerned not succeeding in his effort to serve the defendants through ordinary mode besides when no of application despite his reporting to the Court of his concert to effectuate service of summons upon the defendants at rt their commercial establishment proving futile arising from his on two occasion on visiting their commercial establishment his thereupon detecting it to be locked, stood instituted hereat by the plaintiff for seeking an order herefrom for effectuating service upon the defendants through substituted mode does perse make inroads qua the efficacy of the order of this Court whereby it directed the defendants being proceeded against ex-parte merely on the anvil of the statutorily inefficacious mode of service through RAD covers standing adopted by this Court for effectuating service upon the defendants who uncontrovertedly reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, any reliance upon any ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...11...
endorsement borne on the apposite RAD covers by this .
Court for it thereupon construing of the defendants accepting service connoted by the apposite endorsement displaying their refusing to accept the apposite RAD covers of whereupon it further for omission on their part to record their presence before this Court either in person or through their rt respective authorized representative besides through a counsel holding an apposite empowerment from them direct of theirs being proceeded against ex-parte is also palpably erroneous.
5. Preeminently the non-obstante clause occurring in sub rule (4) of Order 5 Rule 8 CPC unequivocally voices a statutory mandate of when the defendants reside outside the jurisdiction of the Court whereat a plaint stands instituted against it by the plaintiff, the apposite Court whereat the plaint stands instituted by the plaintiff standing enjoined to order for effectuation of service of summons upon the defendants residing outside its territorial jurisdiction through ordinary mode or in a manner enunciated in sub ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...12...
rule (3) of Order V Rule 8 CPC, besides the prime factum of .
the defendants residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court whereat the plaint stands instituted against it/them by the plaintiff, the apposite Court given the of relevant and germane exception carved therein qua the aforesaid prima-donna factum of when the defendants rt reside outside its jurisdiction its not holding any authority to order for effectuating service upon such defendants by RAD covers rendered the adoption by this Court of the excluded mode therein of service upon them standing permitted to strive by the postman concerned concerting to deliver the apposite RAD covers to them, to be a grossly, legally impermissible mode for adoption by this Court for effectuation of service upon them. Moreoso when the defendants uncontrovertedly hold commercial establishment outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court whereupon with exclusion of their service being ordered to be effectuated by this court through RAD covers stands statutorily excepted. Consequently any reliance placed by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...13...
this Court on the apposite endorsement made by the .
postman concerned on the RAD covers of the defendants refusing to accept service, furthermore its concluding of theirs despite standing served theirs omitting to record their of appearance before this Court either in person or through their authorized representative besides through a counsel rt holding an apposite empowerment from them, to be grossly unwarranted. In other words the relevant provisions of the CPC with elaboration portray the modes which are available to be adopted by the Court concerned whereat the plaint stands instituted by the plaintiff for its in tandem thereupon ordering for effectuation of service upon the defendants who reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, modes whereof available for adoption by this Court when specifically exclude the adoption by this Court of service upon the apposite defendants being ordered to be effectuated through RAD, consequently with a specific embargo constituted in sub rule (4) of Order 5 Rule 8 against the Court whereat the plaint is instituted by the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...14...
plaintiff ordering for procuring the presence of the .
defendants before it who reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the apposite Court by theirs standing served through registered post acknowledgment does obviously of nullify the effect if any of an endorsement made by the postman concerned on the RAD covers of the defendants rt refusing to accept service nor also it was legally apt for this Court to draw a conclusion therefrom of with the defendants refusing to accept service its tantamounting to their standing served in accordance with law besides it was also inapt for this Court given their non-appearance before this Court on 25.4.2013 either in person or through their respective authorized representative besides through a counsel holding an apposite empowerment from them to order for theirs being proceeded against ex-parte. Also reiteratedly when the Court whereat the plaint is instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants who reside outside its territorial jurisdiction it stands enjoined to excepting its adopting the specifically excluded mode therein of its ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...15...
ordering for effectuation of service upon the defendants .
through RAD covers its adopting the statutory mechanism alternative to it which stands enunciated in sub Rule (3) of order V Rule 8 CPC. Necessarily when the apposite non-
of obstante clause occurring in Order 5 Rule 8 CPC excludes the play or invocation by the Court concerned of the rt mechanism of effectuation of service through RAD covers upon the defendants residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court besides excludes the workability of Order 5 Rule 21 CPC, as a corollary even the provisions of Rule 21 order 5 were unavailable for adoption by this Court when the defendants reside outside its territorial jurisdiction.
6. Be that as it may, even if the defendants had not come to be properly served in CS No. 65 of 2012 also when the order of this Court by which the defendants were directed tobe proceeded against ex-parte may be legally infirm. Nonetheless the defendants were under a solemn obligation to within a month of the date of its/theirs acquiring knowledge qua initiation of the apposite execution ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...16...
proceedings before this Court, institute an apposite .
application under order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC stands accompanied by an application under Section of 5 of Limitation Act, wherein the counsel for the defendant has made a vigorous effort to explain the delay as stands rt begotten in the belated institution of the application by him for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Undisputedly the apposite application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree rendered against the defendants was enjoined to be instituted within a month from the date of acquisition of knowledge by the defendants qua this Court holding execution of the ex-
parte decree rendered by it on 2.7.2013 against the defendants. The defendants have cast an averment in paragraph 6 of the application constituted under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, of service upon the defendants in the execution petition constituted before this Court at the instance of the plaintiff, standing strived to be served upon ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...17...
the defendant on 5.5.2014, in quick succession to the said .
averments constituted in paragraph 6 of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the defendants aver of theirs immediately thereafter contacting their counsel at of Sikandrabad and instructing him to immediately proceed to Shimla for making an inquiry qua the matter. Even though rt the defendants portray in the apposite paragraph of the application qua theirs immediately subsequent to 5.5.2014 whereat they acquired knowledge of the launching of the execution petition against them by the plaintiff before this Court, theirs directing their/its counsel to proceed to Shimla yet thereafter the counsel for the defendants stands averred to arrive at Shimla belatedly on 15.6.2014 rendering hence a hiatus or gap to emerge from 5.5.2014 till 15.6.2014. The aforesaid period from 5.5.2014 till 15.6.2014 despite in quick succession to 5.5.2014 the defendants directing their counsel to proceed to Shimla, has not evinced any explanation from the defendants qua what prevented their counsel to from 5.5.2014 up to 15.6.2014 proceed to Shimla ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...18...
to inspect the record to gauge therefrom the reason for the .
process server concerned concerting to serve upon it a notice. Especially when the defendants secure an averment with forthrightness of in quick immediacy to of 5.5.2014 theirs directing their counsel at Secundrabad to proceed to Shimla besides with the defendants through their rt authorized representative while rendering his testification hereat making echoings in tandem qua portrayals occurring therein of his acquiring knowledge on 5.5.2014 qua the initiation of the execution proceedings against them before this Court at the instance of the plaintiff whereas thereafter he has not echoed any explanation for the defendants since 5.5.2014 up till one month thereafter which constituted the apt period of limitation encapsulated in the apposite article of the Limitation Act for the defendants to impeach the ex-parte decree, omitting to institute a petition before this Court under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree, coaxes a conclusion from this Court of with the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...19...
defendants not purveying any explanation qua theirs within .
one month to be reckoned from 5.5.2014 up to its expiry on 15.6.2014 omitting to institute an apposite application before this Court for setting aside the ex-parte decree nor of hence when no sufficient cause stands purveyed by the defendants by theirs constituting therein germane, relevant rt and apposite averments in the application preferred by them for setting aside the ex-parte decree comprising the factors which precluded them from 5.5.2014 whereat they acquired knowledge qua the rendition of an ex-parte decree of 2.7.2013 by this Court upto 15.6.2014 within period whereof the apposite application was legally institute-able hereat, preponderantly the apposite omission on their part to within the aforesaid period institute the apposite petition before this Court stands un-explained. In aftermath, when qua the aforesaid period of limitation which stood available in law for them to assail the exparte decree of this Court no forthright or candid explanation emanates from the defendants of any good cause deterring them to institute ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...20...
the apposite application hereat within one month .
computable from 5.5.2014 to 15.6.2014 fillips an inference of this Court of the apposite application being grossly time barred.
of
6. The learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme rt Court in (2013) 12 SCC 649 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, relevant paragraphs whereof stand extracted hereinafter.
"[15] From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justiceoriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-
situation.
(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP...21...
(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
.
(vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a of totally unfettered free play.
(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former rt doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
(xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
(xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
(xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP...22...
[16] To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They .
are: -
(a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.
of
(b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. rt
(c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
(d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-
serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."
7. He also relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2013)11 SCC 341 S. Ganesharau (dead) through LRs and another versus Narasamma (dead) through LRs and others, the relevant paragraphs whereof stand extracted hereinafter. The aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court do propound the parameters which are to be borne in mind by the Courts of law while ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...23...
rendering adjudication upon an application preferred .
therebefore for condonation of delay.
"[13] After giving our anxious and careful consideration to the whole matter, we are of the considered opinion that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law.
of [14] The expression "sufficient cause" as appearing in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 1963, has to be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.
rt [15] Unless Respondents are able to show malafide in not approaching the court within the period of limitation, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. The trend of the courts while dealing with the matter with regard to condonation of delay has tilted more towards condoning delay and directing the parties to contest the matter on merits, meaning thereby that such technicalities have been given a go-by.
[16] Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
[17] We are aware of the fact that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate.
[18] In fact, it is always just, fair and appropriate that matters should be heard on merits rather than shutting the doors of justice at the threshold. Since sufficient cause has not been defined, thus, the courts are left to exercise a discretion to come to the conclusion whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. The only guiding principle to be seen is whether a party has acted with reasonable diligence and had not been negligent and callous in the prosecution of the matter. In the instant case, we find that Appellants have shown sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay and same has been explained satisfactorily."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP
...24...
.
8. However the trite principle which is to be borne in mind for constraining Courts of law for condoning the delay as stands begotten on the part of the aggrieved to avail of the appropriate remedy before the Courts of law is of theirs/its standing deterred by a genuine, satisfactory, rt abundant cause rather than of the delay standing engendered by gross indiligence or indolence on their/its part. Also the factum of the rights of the opposite party which stand embodied in the decree which it/he has received standing frustrated by the aggrieved concerting to by his inordinately procrastinating by sheer indiligence avail an appropriate remedy for assailing it, is also a germane and relevant factum to be borne in mind by Courts of law while adjudicating upon an application preferred therebefore for condoning the delay at the instance of the aggrieved in preferring the apposite application before it. Necessarily hence it was incumbent upon the defendants to purvey a tangible and sound ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...25...
reason which prevented it/them to from the date of .
its/theirs acquiring knowledge on 5.5.2014 qua the pendency of the execution petition against it before this Court till 15.6.2014 within period whereof it stood enjoined to of institute an application before this court for setting aside the ex-part decree, to institute an apposite application within rt the period aforesaid before this Court yet no explanation stands purveyed for the aforesaid period rather no good and sufficient cause emanates on a perusal of the apposite averments constituted in paragraph 6 of the application at hand whereupon it/they stood precluded to from 5.5.2014 till 15.6.2014 to institute an application hereat for setting aside its ex-parte decree rather with the defendants in the apposite paragraph 6 of the application unveiling the factum of it/theirs immediately on its/theirs acquiring knowledge qua the rendition of this Court on 5.5.2014 instructing its/their counsel to proceed to Shimla, which request remained un-acceded by their counsel whereas their counsel rather proceeded to Shimla ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP ...26...
on 15.6.2014 in its entirety effaces the effect if any of the .
submission of the learned counsel for the defendants of the period of one month mandated in the apposite article of the limitation Act for its/theirs preferring an apposite of application before this court being reckonable from 5.5.2014 whereat their counsel inspected the records rt besides its being of no avail to it/them. Moreso when no plausible tangible explanation for reiteration stands purveyed by it/them qua omission on the part of its counsel to from 5.5.2014 whereat he was instructed by the defendants to proceed to Shimla to inspect the records and to gauge therefrom the reasons for this Court proceeding to issue a notice upon it upto 15.6.2014 to visit Shimla renders the said period from 5.5.2014 till 15.6.2014 to remain grossly un-explained. Accordingly, I find no merit in the application, the same is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
30th May, 2016 ( Sureshwar Thakur ),
(priti) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:29 :::HCHP