ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES Vs. INDER MOHAN KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defendant in Suit No. 674/96 titled Shri Inder Mohan Kohli Vs. Mis Associated Engineering Industries, which is pending in the Court of Shri S.N. Dhingra, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) According to the petitioner the suit was fixed on 20th March, 1998 for the evidence of the defendant. Since the parties were negotiating for compromise the defendant's evidence could not be recorded and the case was adjourned to 15th July, 1998 for compromise as well as for defendant's evidence. In view of a decision of the Delhi Bar Association to boycott the court of Shri S.N. Dhingra, Additional District Judge, the counsel for the defendant did not come to the court on 15th July, 199'8 and the defendant could not get the assistance of his counsel for recording evidence. Hence Shri' Rajeev Garg, partner of the defendant firm appeared in person and thought adjournment of the case. However, the learned Additional District Judge held that the absence of the counsel due to the decision of the Delhi Bar Association to boycott the court was not a ground for adjournment of the case. Consequently the defendant's evidence was closed and the case was adjourned to 20th July, 1998 for arguments. Later, the defendant filed an application dated 17th July, 1998 praying that the order dated 15th July, 1998 may be recalled and the defendant may be allowed to appear, in the witness box to defend his case. In the said application the defendant pointed out that on 15th July, 1998 the defendant had appeared in person and had requested for adjournment of the case since lawyers were abstaining from appearing in the Court of Shri S.N. Dhingra, Additional District Judge in response to a decision of the Bar Association. The defendant also stated that since the lawyers were abstaining from appearing in the court and since the defendant did not have any knowledge of law, the only alternative left with the defendant was to lead his evidence with the assistance of the Court and therefore the defendant was filing the application. The said application dated 17th July, 1998 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 20th July, 1998 observing that he found no force in the application. On 20th July, 1998 the plaintiff had filed written arguments but no arguments were addressed or filed by the defendant and the case stood adjourned to 28th July, 1998 for orders. Aggrieved- by the above mentioned orders dated 15th July, 1998 and 20th July, 1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner prays for a further opportunity to lead evidence in the case in the interest of justice. As per the interim orders passed by this Court further proceedings in Suit No-764/96 stand stayed.

(3.) I heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent did not seriously oppose the prayer of the petitioner and he suggested that appropriate orders could be passed by.this Court in the interest of justice.