DVH INDUSTRIES Vs. HARTLEY KNITS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE annals of the litigation are required to be placed in proper perspective. A suit for Mandatory Injunction was filed by the Respondent before us, namely, M/s.Hartley Knits. The Suit was valued at Rupees 5,01,000.00 and a Court Fee of Rupees 7,800.00 was affixed. However, in the so-called Suit for Mandatory Injunction it has been prayed to the Court to "(a) pass a decree for US$1,27,085.50 with interest at the rate of 20 per cent per annum against the Defendants and (b) pass such other and further orders as this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case ". On the very first hearing, the valuation was found to be deficient and the Plaintiff was called upon to make good the deficiency of Court Fee. On this being done, on 4.9.2000 Summons were issued to the Defendants. Defendants No.1, 2 and 3 entered appearance on 6.11.2000. The Appellant, who was originally arrayed as Defendant No.2, filed a Written Statement dated 25.9.2002. Noting that Defendant No.2 had admitted that it had received US$76928.48 in connection with this very transaction, the Court had restrained that Defendant, who is the Appellant before us, from making payment of US$76928.48 to any person except the Plaintiff. By Orders dated 4.9.2002 the Appellant/Defendant No.2 was directed to remit the said sum of US$76928.48 to the Registrar-General of this Court. This Order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and the further appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.8.2003.

(2.) ON 19.8.2003 the Joint Registrar erroneously observed that the suit had been valued for the purposes of Court Fee and jurisdiction below Rupees 20,00,000.00 and, therefore, it was liable to be transferred to the District Court, Delhi. All the parties, which included Defendant No.2, who was represented at that hearing, were directed to appear before the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi on 6.11.2003. Obviously, the Joint Registrar had lost sight of the fact that the deficiency in Court Fee had been made up and that the suit was for recovery of US$76928.48 which was indubitably above Rupees 20,00,000.00. On 26.10.2004, the Suit was transferred back to the High Court of Delhi in the presence of learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1.

(3.) IA No.1834/2006 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed by the Appellant on 15.1.2008 praying for recalling the ex parte Judgment and Decree dated 10.12.2007. This application has been supported by the Affidavit of Mr. Hasmukh Khatri, President of the Appellant. After several hearings, IA No.14722/2008 was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff/Decree Holder praying for the release to it of the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor. By means of the impugned Order, IA No.1834/2006 under Order IX Rule 13 was dismissed and IA No.14722/2008 filed by the Plaintiff was allowed, thereby ordering the release of US$76928.48 to the Plaintiff/Decree Holder.