LALIT MOHAN PURI Vs. PURE DRINKS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . By these two applications made under Order 9 Rule 13 r. w. Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code ; first being main and other styled as supplementary application, the respondent seeks setting aside of ex-parte judgement delivered on 30.10.91 whereby petitioner's W.P. U/Art. 226 of the Constitution, assailing the award dated 29.10.88 given by Labour Court against him and seeking its reversal was allowed.

(2.) The grounds taken up in the two applications are : (i) that the matter used to be shown on the list or DB-7 but suddenly appears to have been transferred from DB-7 to DB-5 from 28.10.91 onwards, which fact was not noticed by Gopal Singh, the Court Clerk of Dr. Anand Prakash, Sr. Advocate, whose duty was to scrutinse cause list and inform him about listing of the cases as well as to Mr- Samir Prakash the advocate on record of respondent : (ii) that at any rate there has been no lapse on the part of the applicant who had been defending the case diligently before the Labour Court and in the High Court and had entrusted the matter to the counsel for being persued and prosecuted on their behalf: it should not be penalised for the lapse of the counsel: and (iii) the petitioner had been guilty of making various false statements, concealing material facts and correspondence.

(3.) In support of their stand, the applicant has filed affidavits of Gopal Singh, counsel's clerk. Mr. M.S. Chaudhary, the Deputy, Personnel Manager of the respondent company, Mr. Samir Prakash, Advocate and Dr. Anand. affidavit for controverting his bona fide need. Therefore, even the bona fide need was made out by the landlord qua the suit premises, though it was not necessary to prove that qua the petitioner because he is not a tenant. He is only an unauthorised sub-tenant or assignee from M/s Concord.