D P JOSHI Vs. SHAKUNTALA RANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant Mr. D.P. Joshi for recalling of order dated 11.09.2007 passed by this Court on his application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissing his application as having become infructuous in view of compromise between the parties.

(2.) The applicant in the instant application has pleaded that no compromise was arrived at between the parties and the order dismissing the petition as having become infructuous passed on 11.09.2007 need to be recalled. It is stated that on 22.08.2006 also the Court was told by the respondent that the matter has been compromised between the parties. According to the applicant, the respondent had misled the Court regarding compromise on 22.08.2006. On 23.11.2006 when the matter came up for hearing before this Court, following orders were passed:- "It is stated that no settlement has taken place between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply to the petition. Let reply be filed within four weeks, rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. List on 15th March, 2007. Interim orders to continue."

(3.) After 23.11.2006, the case was adjourned for 15.03.2007, 16.03.2007, 29.05.2007 and lastly for 11.09.2007. It is further stated that on 11.09.2007, the counsel Mr. Ajay Bansal had to appear before the Court on behalf of the applicant but he could not appear on account of the fact that he had to go out of Delhi for some personal work and therefore he requested one of the junior counsel namely Mr. Ashish Garg who had just joined the profession to appear and seek a date. It is contended that Mr. Ashish Garg had never appeared in this matter earlier and was not aware about the facts of the case. On 11.09.2007, the counsel for the respondent again misled the Court taking advantage of the situation of non appearance of the leading counsel Mr. Ajay Bansal and made a statement that the matter was compromised and the junior counsel appearing for the applicant could not understand the situation and remain silent because of which this Court recorded in its order dated 11.09.2007 that the petition has become infructuous in view of compromise between the parties .