HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harish Chand Kohli, who has appeared in person on behalf of respondent No. 2. Earlier the case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to get the matter settled outside the Court. However, when the case was taken up today, the settlement between the parties is not seen. In view of the aforesaid, we have proceeded to decide the writ petition on merit.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 15.11.1996 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) by which order the Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar has rejected the application of the petitioner for restoring the F.A.F.O. which was dismissed on 4th July, 1996. The F.A.F.O. was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.4.1983 by which order the arbitration award awarding a sum of Rs. 79,000 to the respondent was made Rule of the Court. When the F.A.F.O. was called on several occasion, neither the petitioner nor the petitioner's counsel appeared hence the Court dismissed the appeal. An application was filed for restoration of the appeal alongwith the affidavit of Sri A. P. Trivedi, Supervisor. The objection was filed to the said restoration application. The Court heard the parties and has dismissed the application. The Court did not believe the cause shown by the petitioner for non-appearance on 4th July, 1996. It was noticed by the Court that 4th July, 1996 was the date fixed on the request made by the petitioner and the appeal which was pending for 13 years was to be heard finally on 4th July, 1996. Neither the petitioner appeared nor his counsel appeared although respondent and his counsel were present. The explanation given by the petitioner was that there was workers' agitation in the establishment due to which, no one could come to the Court and the file of the case was with the Supervisor. The Court disbelieved the case set up by the petitioner and has observed that no senior officer has filed any affidavit with regard to extent of the workers' agitation and it has not even stated that there has been any violence resorted by the workers in the establishment. The Court also did not believe that there was no facility of telephone and the case file was not with the counsel. The Court observed that in a case where appeal was pending for last 13 years and adjourned for 4th July, 1996 on the request of the petitioner, the file of the case be not with the counsel, is not believable. Against the order dismissing the restoration application, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 26th November, 1996 which remained pending in this Court for another 13 years.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions and perused the record.