SUNDER KUKREJA Vs. MOHAN LAL KUKREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This an application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside and recalling the order dated 22.11.2000 dismissing the suit for default and for restoration of the suit to its original number.

(2.) . The present proceeding is registered on the basis of the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 20 and 41 of the Arbitration Act. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that there is an arbitration agreement dated 10.7.1984 between the parties and since disputes have arisen between the parties out of and in connection with the agreement, which contains the aforesaid arbitration clause, an order should be passed directing for filing of the said arbitration agreement in this court and thereafter referring the disputes arising between the parties to be adjudicated upon and decided through the process of arbitration. The aforesaid petition is contested by the respondents.

(3.) . On 22-11-2000, the suit was listed for hearing arguments on the pending applications. However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and therefore, this court by order of the same date, i.e. 22-11-2000 dismissed the suit for defaulr in appearance. On 29-11-2000, an application was filed by the petitioners purported to be under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was also supported by an affidavit of the counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is stated in the application that the said counsel was engaged by the petitioners and he also filed his vakalatnama on 10-10,2000. It is also. stated that the counsel inspected the case records, and after inspection the next date in the suit was inadvertently noted as 27-11-2000 instead of 22.11.2000. It is further stated that when on 27-11-2000 the case was not listed in the daily cause list, the counsel for the petitioners on 28.11.2000 moved an application for inspection of the records and came to know that the suit was dismissed on 22.11.2000 for default in appearance. It is also stated that the said counsel was out of station for the wedding of his colleague on 22.11.2000 and, therefore, he could not have checked the cause list. It is pointed out that non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioners was unintentional and bonafide and the same is required to be condoned.