Radha Jute Industry vs Sukhna Papers Mills Ltd.

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—Company petition No. 70 of 1989 was adjourned to 9-3-1990 for filing '' reply by the respondent. On 9-3-1990, no one appeared on behalf of either party and the petition was dismissed in default Application under Order 9, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, read with Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules was filed for restoring the said Company Petition which was dismissed on 3-5-1990 on the ground that no facts and circums- tances were mentioned in the application which constituted a sufficient cause for the petitioner''s absence.

2 Since no one was present on behalf of the respondent at the time of passing the order dated 9-3-1990 or the subsequent order dated 3.5.1990, this appeal is disposed of at the stage of motion bearing without issuing any notice to the respondent. According to the learned counsel on the date fixed, that is, 9.3.1990, the respondent was to file the reply and in that situation, the petition should not have been dismissed in default in case nobody appeared for the petitioner. In support of his contention, he referred to R. P. Jags, Advocate and Ors. v. Sadhu Ram and Co through Shirr Pawan Kaman and other 1987 92 P.L.R 463, and Smt. Bumble Nevi v. Boota Singh 1986 90 P.L.R. 472.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that singe it was the respondent who was to file the reply on the said '' date, that is, 9-3-1990, the petition should not have been, dismissed simply because nobody appeared for the petitioner, particularly when nobody appeared for the respondent either. This constituted a sufficient cause for restoring the petition to its original number. Consequently, the appeal is allowed; the order dated 3-5-1990 is set aside and the Company Petition No. 70 of 1989 is restored to its original number. Tae appellant is directed to appear before the Company Judge on 28.9-1930.