SANYUKT NIRMATA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'Civil Procedure Code') the Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA') wants the decree, passed by this Court in favour of the respondent, pursuance to an award having been made a rule of the Court, be set aside.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised by the applicant- D.D.A., the brief facts of the case are that award made and published by Sh.J.K.Varashneya, the sole arbitrator dated 20th October, 1992 was ordered to be filed in the Court. The said award was filed in the Court on 31st March; 1993. The petitioner accepted the notice of filing of the award but did not file any objections. The respondent/ D.D.A. who was also served with the notice of the filing of the award on 28th May, 1993, did not file any objection to the award, within the statutory period. As a result the said award was made a rule of the Court on 21st September, 1993. The petitioner/ decree holder filed an execution application seeking attachment of the assets of the D.D.A. The was allowed and the decretal amount was realised by the petitioner. On 3rd February, 1994, present application was filed for setting aside the decree. The relief has been sought, inter-alia, on the grounds that the award pertained to the South Western Division-VII of the D.D.A. Since there were three cases pending inter se the parties relating to the above Division, therefore, the Executive Engineer.could not ascertain as to in which case the notice of the filing of the award had been received. It was only on 20th December, 1993 on enquiry made from the office of the decree holder that D.D.A. official came to know that the award had been made a rule of the Court. Immediately on obtaining this information, the case was marked to a panel Lawyer who inspected the Court record and found that notice of the filing of the award was received in the Legal Section of D.D.A. on 28th May, 1993. From the inspection of the office record, it transpired that after receipt of the notice from the Court, the Legal Branch of the DDA opened the case file on 28th May, 1993. Thereafter the case was entrusted to one Mrs.Mala Goel, a panel Lawyer. Later on it transpired that she had infact already resigned from the panel of the D.D.A. on 31st March,1993, therefore, no action was taken by her. On realisation of this mistake, the file was sent to the South Western Division-VII on 10th June, 1993. Thereafter the said file was not traceable because it was tagged on with some other file by inadvertance and, therefore, no further action was taken till the Court file was inspected on 21st January, 1994. Hence, the delay in filing the objections.