Delhi High Court
Manpreet Singh Talwar vs Ravinder Nath Chopra And Anr on 5 March, 2013
Author: Veena Birbal
Bench: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1175/2012
% Date of decision: March 5, 2013
MANPREET SINGH TALWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. I. Ahmed, proxy counsel for
Mr. S.D. Ansari, Adv.
versus
RAVINDER NATH CHOPRA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.P. Jha, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J.(Oral)
%
1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the order dated 12 th September, 2012 by which the application of the petitioner i.e., defendant no.2 before the trial court seeking recall of the order dated 23rd August, 2011 and 12th January, 2012 and subsequent orders, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant no.2 has submitted that the respondent i.e., plaintiff before the trial court has filed a suit for recovery of possession, recovery of rent and damages/mesne profits for use and occupation in respect of suit property. It is stated that written statement of CM(M) 1175/2012 Page 1 of 3 petitioner/defendant no.2 is already on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant no.2 has submitted that on 23 rd August, 2011, petitioner/defendant no.2 was proceeded ex parte and the counsel for petitioner/defendant no.2 appeared on 17th December, 2011 and came to know about the ex parte order dated 23rd August, 2011. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 12th September, 2011. On the said date, petitioner/defendant no.2 was informed that matter has already been adjourned to 3rd March, 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant no.2 has changed his counsel and the new counsel inspected the file and applied for certified copies which was delivered on 29th February, 2012 and after going through the record, it was revealed that petitioner/defendant no.2 has already been proceeded ex parte on 23 rd August, 2011 and the ex parte evidence of the plaintiff was recorded on 12 th December, 2012. It is stated that non appearance was not intentional and due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner/defendant no.2.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that detailed reasoning has been given by the learned trial court in dismissing the application.
4. After some arguments, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has stated that in order to cut short further delay in the matter, he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner/defendant no.2 is given an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
5. In view of the above submissions made and considering that written statement of petitioner/defendant no.2 is already on record and also considering that serious prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner/defendant no.2 if he is CM(M) 1175/2012 Page 2 of 3 not allowed to contest the case on merits, the impugned orders dated 12 th September, 2012, 23rd August, 2011, 12th January, 2012 and subsequent orders are set aside subject to costs of ` 10000/-. The next date before the trial court is 26th March, 2013. On the said date, petitioner/defendant no.2 shall pay costs to the respondent/plaintiff and thereafter, the court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.
CM No.18331/2012(for stay) In view of the order on the main petition, no order is required on this application.
The same stand disposed of accordingly.
CM No.21234/2012 (for directions) In view of the order on the main petition, learned counsel for the respondent has not pressed the present application.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed as not pressed.
VEENA BIRBAL, J MARCH 05, 2013 ssb CM(M) 1175/2012 Page 3 of 3