UMESH CHANDER SHARMA vs RAJESH ELECTRONICS

BRIEFLY the facts are that a complaint was filed by Sh. Umesh Chander Sharma against Rajesh Electronics and two others for recovery of Rs. 1,35,450/- before us. The respondent was served for 20.11.91. On that date case was adjourned to 11.12.91 for written statement. On the adjourned date Mr. Parveen Gupta, respondent No. 3 appeared on his behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and requested for further adjournment to file the written statement. At his request the case was adjourned to 20.12.91 subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as costs.

ON 20.12.91 no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. However, Mrs. Oberoi, the Counsel for the complainant made a statement before us that a talk of compromise was going on between the parties and requested for adjournment. Consequently the case was adjourned to 15.1.92. ON that date the respondent was represented by Mr. Ashok Gulati, Advocate. He again requested for a date for written statement, it was adjourned to 27.1.92. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents on 27.1.92 and consequently they were proceeded against ex-parte. The case was adjourned to 10.2.92 for ex-parte evidence. The case was again adjourned to 17.2.92 at the request of Mrs. Oberoi. She filed an affidavit by way of evidence on 17.2.92. The arguments were heard on the same date and the order was dictated and pronounced in the Court on the same date. An application has now been filed on behalf of the respondents by Mr. S.S. Anand, Advocate praying for setting-aside the ex-parte order. It is stated in the application that the Counsel for the respondents failed to inform the respondents on 15.1.92 regarding the adjourned date namely 27.1.1992. Consequently no one appeared on behalf of the respondents on 27.1.92 and the subsequent dates. In the circumstances it has been prayed that the ex-parte order be set aside and the complaint be decided afresh after recording the evidence of the respondents.

The application has been opposed on behalf of the complainant. After giving the history of the case, in the reply, it is alleged, that there are no grounds to set-aside the order after a lapse of about three months.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that it was duty of Mr. Gulati, Advocate who appeared on behalf of the respondents on 15.1.92 to have informed the respondents about the next date of hearing, but he failed to do so; and that the respondents should not be allowed to suffer on account of the fault of the Counsel. We have duly considered the argument but regret out inability to accept the same. THE brief resume of facts has already been given above. THE first date which was fixed for written statement was 11.12.91 and it was adjourned on various dates at the request of the respondents. Till February, 1992 the respondents failed to file the written statement. On one occasion even the costs were awarded against them, which they did not pay. THE application has now been filed by them after more than 30 days, the period prescribed for filing such applications under the Limitation Act. THE plea taken by the respondents is that the Counsel did not inform them about the date. If the Counsel had not informed the respondents, a duty also lay on the respondents to make enquiry from their Counsel about their case. THEy thus failed to pursue the matter diligently. THEy cannot blame their Counsel that no intimation was given by him to them. THEy even did not file any affidavit of the Counsel against whom allegations are being made by them. In the aforesaid circumstances we did not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents. Consequently we dismiss the application of the respondents for setting aside the ex-parte decree. No order as to costs. Application dismissed with costs.