MANMOHAN PALL Vs. CHANDER PALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FAO 154/2002 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14TH FEBRUARY, 2002, OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE IN HMA NO. 3/2002/2001, WHEREBY THE LEARNED JUDGE HAS DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR RESTORING THE PETITION, WHICH WAS DISMISSED IN DEFAULT ON 20TH JULY, 2001.

(2.) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ARE AS UNDER :

(3.) IT IS CONTENDED BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THAT THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEFAULTS COMMITTED BY THE COUNSEL ENGAGED BY THE APPELLANT AND THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE ON HIS PART WHATSOEVER. HE SUBMITS THAT IN THE EVENT THE PETITION IS RESTORED, NO ONE WILL SUFFER ANY PREJUDICE MUCH LESS OF IRREPARABLE NATURE. HE REFERS TO THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN LAJPAT RAI & ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. [ AIR 1981 SC 1401 ] AND DEVENDER SWAMY VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [ (2002) 9 SUPREME COURT CASES 644 ], WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT FOR THE DEFAULT OF COUNSEL, THE PARTY MUST NOT SUFFER.