DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BHASIN ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration that even if the affidavit of the earlier panel lawyer Ms.Sangeeta Bharti is taken into consideration that there was delay in handing over the file after she resigned from the panel, the appellant before us could not explain non-appearance from March, 2000 till April, 2002. The explanation as set out in the application before the learned Single Judge in para 2 of the application was that matter was conducted by panel lawyer and the file of the matter was sent to her on 17.3.1999. No intimation regarding the progress was sent by her to the Department and the panel lawyer resigned from the panel in March, 2000. If the panel lawyer has resigned in the year 2000 and the department while engaging the counsel maintains a register, why efforts were not made about the fate of the case. Needless to say that the officers of the appellant may not have a personal interest like a private party and on that account some leniency may be shown by the Court. But in a case where the negligence is writ large, the law of Limitation cannot be ignored and its rigour diluted.

(2.) Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1623 observed that taking into consideration that the law of limitation and sufficient cause as has to be shown by a private party need not be applied with such rigours, at the same time it does not absolve the appellant from its obligation to be diligent in prosecuting the matter. No material was placed before the learned Single Judge giving any explanation. Reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge on Shri N. Paul Babuta Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1999 All India High Court Cases 495 that by engaging counsel, party to the case is not relieved of his duties and obligations in the matter. The application and the rejoinder filed by the appellant is totally silent as to what steps were taken and what correspondence was done for the recovery of the file.

(3.) We have perused the affidavit dated 27.11.2003 filed by appellant pursuant to the order passed by this Court. The bald stand taken by the deponent is that no communication was issued by the legal department to the engineering department. It was the duty of the engineering department against whom an award was given and as objections at their behalf were filed. They simply cannot pass on the responsibility to another department, as if it were a foreign department. The offices of the law department and the engineering departments are in Delhi and if the file was not received from the counsel, what prevented appellant from appearing in the Court and submitting before the Court that the file has not been received from the earlier counsel. This attitude of shifting the responsibility either on the counsel or by one department to another is totally reprehensible and amounts to lackluster approach on the part of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has also noted that the appellant was aware of the pendency of the case which would be evident from the fact that the law officer of the appellant appeared in Court on 14.9.2001 and time was taken for engaging a counsel. The attitude of the appellant is not only callous, it is indifferent and negligent also. It is only on account of such attitude dates after dates are taken by the departments and the dockets of the Court remain large. The learned Single Judge has also ordered in the impugned judgment that despite the order of the Court passed on 7th August, 2003, the respondent DDA, (i.e. appellant before us) failed to place on record the correspondence between the department and the panel lawyer. It was only when notice of execution proceedings were served upon the appellant, the appellant woke from deep slumber. In Chandra Mani's case (supra) the Supreme Court way back in 1996 directed the authorities like appellant as under: