MCD Vs. KAMLA VALVES MANUFACTURING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING pendency of the suit under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the defendant No. 1 filed an IA No.3990/00 raising objections against the award. These objections of the objector/applicant were dismissed in default on 10th April, 2001. The applicant filed an OA No.4678/01 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the order dated 10th April, 2001. Again none appeared to prosecute this OA No.4678/01 and this application was dismissed in default on 3rd September, 2002. Applicant then filed second application, i.e., IA No.10053/02 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the order dated 10th April, 01. This application was also dismissed in default on 30th October, 2002. From 30th October, 2002till 2006 the applicant kept sleeping coolly. Then third IAIA Nos.11523-524/07 & 13815-816/06 in No.13816/06 under Order 9 rule 13 was made by the applicant for setting aside the order dated 10th April, 2001. This application was also dismissed in default on 24th September, 2007 and thereafter applicant made two applications bearing IA No.13815/06 under Section 5 to condone the delay in filing fourth application No. 13816/06 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. This application 13815/06was dismissed in default on 24th September, 2007. Then applicant filed fifth IA No.11524/07 under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the order dated 10th April, 2001. This application is accompanied by another application being IA No.11523/07 under Section 5 of Limitation act which is subject matter of disposal of this order. He also filed another IA No.11475/07 for restoration of IA Nos.13815/06and 13816/06 which were dismissed on 24.9.2007.

(2.) THE plea taken by the applicant is that applicant had its office at Howrah(Calcutta) and carrying its business from Calcutta. After service of summons of the suit, the proprietor of applicant firm engaged an Advocate, Mr. R.K. Singh for handling the suit and challenging the award. Thereafter the proprietor contacted his Advocate in Delhi and he was told that the application for setting aside the award and deciding the suit has been filed and was being prosecuted. The applicant kept on requesting his Advocate to send him the orders passed by the Court. On 10.10.2006 the applicant was shocked to receive a notice of execution case No. 200/06 filed by the Delhi Jal Board and then the applicant came to know that the award has been made a rule of the Court. The applicant all along had been under the impression that his objection petition had been allowed and the award has been set aside. He then tried to contact his earlier Advocate but was unable to do so as the Advocate was not available at his office. His whereabouts were not known. The applicant however traced him out and found that he was seriously ill and bed ridden. The applicant then came to Delhi and engaged anew set of Advocates and learnt about the past proceedings on inspection of file by his new Advocate. It is stated that the applicant suffered only due to negligence of his earlier Advocate who did not discharge his professional duty as expected and the applicant should not be made to suffer for negligence of the Advocate. About the applications No. 13815/06 and 13816/06 being dismissed in default on 24.9.07 nothing is stated.