SYNDICATE BANK Vs. PICKSONIC ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed this suit under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, inter alia, alleging that the case was listed before the Joint Registrar (0) on April 25,1996, for admission/denial and after the admission/denial of the documents was carried out case was postponed for framing of issues by the court. Plaintiff's counsel noted down the date for framing of issues in his diary as July 23, 1996. When the case was not found listed on July 23, 1996 on inquiry from the Branch it was revealed that the same was dismissed on July 11,1996. It is further alleged that immediately thereafter on inspection of the file by the plaintiff's counsel it was detected that the Joint Registrar had adjourned the case to July 3 instead of July 23, 1996 and that the case was listed on July 3, 1996 and renotified on July 11,1996 on which date it was dismissed in default of appearance of the plaintiff. It is stated that the counsel for the plaintiff is based at Tis Hazari Courts and is not subscribing to the daily cause-list of the High Court. Failure of the plaintiff's counsel to appear on July 3, 1996 or July 11, 1996 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It was prayed that the order dated July 11,1996, may be set aside and the suit restored to its original number. Affidavit of Shri Ramesh Rajani, Advocate, has been filed in support of the averments made in the application besides the photostat copies of the pages of the diary dated April 25, 1996 and July 23, 1996, maintained by the plaintiffs counsel.

(2.) In the reply it is, inter alia, alleged that the defendants filed a bunch of documents and also I.A.6080/96 in the Registry on July 1, 1996. Copies of the documents and the).A. were supplied to the plaintiff's counsel in advance on May 30, 1996. On the index filed alongwith the documents I.A. 6080/96 next date of hearing was noted as July 3, 1996. It is emphatically denied that non-appearance of the plaintiff's counsel or official of the advocate either on July 3, 1996 was deliberate or international, as alleged. However, no affidavit has been filed in support of the averments made in the reply.

(3.) I have heard the parties counsel and has been taken through the record.