COAL INDIA LIMITED Vs. MACMET INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court :- This is an application for restoring the suit, which was filed in the year 1995 and got dismissed on 21st July, 2011. The plaintiff is a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The said application for restoration was filed on 8th February, 2013. The plaintiff says that it had engaged an Advocate on record with a belief that he will represent the plaintiff when the matter is taken up. It is also the case of the plaintiff that several letters and reminders were issued to the said Advocate, but no response came from the side of the said Advocate. Being dissatisfied with the conduct of the said Advocate the plaintiff obtained change on or about 23rdMarch, 2012 and engaged its present Advocate on record. At the time when the change was obtained the erstwhile Advocate on record of the plaintiff did not even inform the plaintiff that the suit had stood dismissed by that time. The plaintiff subsequently came to know about the suit being dismissed when its present Advocate on record obtained information slip from this Court vide the information slip dated 15th March, 2012. Another information slip dated 21st January, 2011 has been relied upon to demonstrate that the plaintiff was vigilant as to the suit.

(2.) The conduct of the plaintiff despite letters being written to its erstwhile Advocate on record cannot be brushed aside as it had its own responsibility to pursue the matter, particularly when it is a Government company and has a full fledged legal department. Between 1995 and 2011 the suit was not proceeded with though the carriage of proceedings was with the plaintiff and as such the suit was placed in the list as "Old Suits" and finally dismissed. The plaintiff's conduct is further deplorable when it is noticed that the restoration application is filed only on 8th February 2013 though the plaintiff came to know about the dismissal of the suit as far back as on 15th March, 2012. The records though reveal that in the information slip dated 15th March, 2012, the name of the Advocates representing the parties has not been correctly recorded. Even in the order dated 21st July, 2011 by which the suit was dismissed the cause title has not been correctly typed out. The plaintiff is shown as the defendant, while the defendant is shown as the plaintiff in the said order. The plaintiff, however, has not taken these points for the purpose of having the suit restored.

(3.) The defendant submits that it will be evident from the letters exchanged between the plaintiff and its erstwhile Advocate on record that the plaintiff was not at all diligent in proceeding with this suit. It can also be gauged from these letters that the plaintiff knew about dismissal immediately after the suit stood dismissed, but has suppressed such fact. In fact, the suit stood dismissed once even prior to the dismissal dated 21st July, 2011. The Advocate for the defendant also refers to some of the letters annexed to the petition and the averments made by the plaintiff in support of his argument.