DASHMESH TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. SABOO CYLINDER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this case was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the appellant by referring to the file of the Forum below submitted that arguments were heard on 7.5.2003. Case was fixed on 8.5.2000. Because order could not be dictated to the P.A. on his being indisposed, again in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties, case was adjournded to 26.6.2003 for fresh arguments on 8.5.2003 itself. On this adjourned date when no one appeared, appellant was proceeded against ex parte. Case was adjourned to 9.7.2003 when ex parte arguments were heard and it was adjourned to 6.8.2003 when impugned order has been passed.

(2.) RECORD the case further shows that an application was filed on 17.10.2003 for setting aside ex parte orders dated 26.6.2003 and 6.8.2003. We may clarify that latter order is the final order. While narrating the facts in the application, order passed by the District Forum on 8.5.2003 has been very conveniently twisted. For ready reference this order is extracted herein below : "PresentMr. A.S. Shah, Adv. for Comp. Mr. Pardeep Chauhan, Adv. for O.P. The order could not be dictated and typed out as P.A. fell ill, therefore, for fresh arguments, to come up on 26.6.2003." In the face of this order passed in the presence of learned Counsel for the appellant, there was hardly any occasion for the appellant to understand that there would no further date of arguments. Similarly, there was no question of the Forum having intimated the appellant of the next date i.e., 26.6.2003. On 8.5.2003 itself when Counsel was present on its behalf, case was specifically fixed for fresh arguments on 26.6.2003. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, there can be hardly any confusion. This application was turned down by the District Forum below vide its order dated 11.8.2004 and in our view correctly.

(3.) THEREFORE , plea urged by Mr. Arvind Sharma on behalf of the appellant that after setting aside the ex parte order dated 26.6.2003 and consequently final order, the case may be remanded back for further hearing, has no substance.