HEERA LAL CHHABRA Vs. NAWAL KISHORE AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shrey Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier plaintiff-respondent has filed SCC Suit No. 48 of 2014 in which date of 5/3/2022 has been fixed, but learned counsel for the defendant was busy in some other Court, therefore, he could not appear before the Court. On the very same day, Court has passed order to proceed ex-parte. Against that he has filed recall application on 22/3/2022, which was rejected vide order dtd. 28/7/2022. Against the said order, petitioner-defendant has preferred SCC Revision No. 101 of 2022, which was also dismissed vide order dtd. 12/4/2022.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that cause of non appearance of leaned counsel for the defendant is genuine as he is arguing before the another Court. Further, in paragraph 39 of the petition, he undertakes that he would appear each and every date before the concerned Court without taking adjournment, therefore, order may be quashed and opportunity may also be given to accept the evidence of defence. He lastly submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed this aspect in the case of The Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr. Vs. Raghu Raj reported in JT 2008 (11) SC 397 and held that even if there is default on the part of advocate in not appearing at the time of hearing, defendant-petitioner shall not suffer injustice.