MFG INDIA LIMITED Vs. DAILY PRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant application is made on behalf of the respondents under Order XLVII Rule 7(2), Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 141 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking recall of order dated 13/5/1999 and restoration of RA No.24/90 as well as application for condonation of delay in filing the objections.

(2.) The application proceeds to state that Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate had appeared as counsel for applicants respondents on 10/3/1999 when the case was adjourned to 13/5/1999. However, by bonafide mistake, Ms. Saroj Bidawat got the impression that matter had been adjourned to 14/5/1999 and she accordingly made note of 14/5/1999 instead of 13/5/1999 as the next date of hearing in her diary. Having misnoted the date, there was no appearance on 13/5/1999 from the side of the applicants-respondents, which accounted for dismissal of the review application and I.A.No.9480/90 for condonation of delay in filing the objections.

(3.) The application is supported by an affidavit of Ms. SaroJ Bidawat, Advocate. The application is opposed on behalf of the non-applicant/ petitioner on the grounds that since the review application had been decided on merits, the application for restoration thereof is not maintainable and further that there being no sufficient cause for non appearance of the respondents or their counsel, the application cannot be granted. I have heard the arguments on both the sides. The order dated 13/5/1999, dismissing the review application and I.A.No.9400/90 may be reproduced for the benefit of reference. It reads as under: