DOOARS TRANSPORT LTD. Vs. GAUTAM SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No. 16 of 2006 whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 15,79,350/ - from the defendant (including the present appellants) along with interest @6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till payment of the amount.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case set up by the plaintiff was that he was a wholesaler of medicines and he used to purchase medicines from Nicholas Piramol India Limited, who were arrayed as defendant Nos. 4 and 5. According to the petitioner he got his medicines transported through defendant No. 1 M/s. Dooars Transport Limited. The main office of the company is at Delhi. Defendant No. 2 was the Branch Office of the company at Gauhati and defendant No. 3 was Branch Manager of the company at Agartala. However, the main defendant is defendant No. 1.

(3.) FROM the order of the learned trial Court it appears that the written statement was filed on 26.03.2007 but the learned trial Court did not officially take it on record because of the fact that the defendants had been proceeded against ex parte . Though on 26.03.2007 the appellants knew about this fact that their written statement had not been accepted they choose to file an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings only on 12.09.2007. There is no explanation worth the name why such application was not filed at an earlier stage especially when the parties were represented by counsel and the counsel were appearing on certain dates and disappearing on certain dates. Though the learned trial Court may have been wrong in rejecting the application on a highly technical plea that the provision of law mentioned was wrong, we are of the view that even on merits the defendants were not entitled to any indulgence because of the fact that for more than one year they did not take any steps to get the ex parte proceedings set aside.