SUNIL KUMAR Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.7226/2015 (exemption) in C.R.P. 55/2015

(2.) Two suits being Civil Suit Nos. 85/2013 and 86/2013 were filed by Sandeep Kumar, Plaintiff/Respondent seeking recovery of Rs. 3.20 lakhs and Rs. 4.50 lakhs along with the interest and cost. The said suits were dismissed in default on 3rd April, 2014. Thus Sandeep Kumar filed applications for condonation of delay and under Order IX Rule 9 CPC praying for setting aside of the order dated 3rd April, 2014. The explanation rendered was that Sandeep Kumar used to telephonically ask his counsel who assured that no personal presence was required. On 3rd April, 2014 Sandeep Kumar called his counsel and he was informed that the counsel was out of station and had requested his associate to appear before the Court. The next date before the learned Trial Court was informed to be 16th July, 2014. On 16th July, 2014 Sandeep Kumar again inquired from his counsel who stated that he was not aware of the case. On 30th July, 2014 Sandeep Kumar met his counsel who informed that the suits have been dismissed and handed over the certified copies of the order dated 3rd April, 2014. Thus it is prayed that the Plaintiff should not suffer for the consequence of his counsel.

(3.) Sunil Kumar, the Petitioner/Defendant had filed reply to the applications stating that false affidavits have been filed and no vested right accrued for restoration of the suits on frivolous applications. It was further stated that the Plaintiff personally appeared in another matter before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate regularly, that is, on 25th April, 2014, 4th June, 2014, 18th July, 2014, 25th July, 2014 and 19th August, 2014. It was stated that five advocates had filed the vakalatnama on behalf of M/s Soni and Associates and one of the counsels was Ankur Garg and now putting the responsibility on one counsel, Ankur Garg has filed the applications. No complaint has been filed for the unethical behaviour of the earlier counsel.