HARYANA STATE Vs. GOEL PROJECT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order of the Sub Judge I Class dated 24.8.1995 whereby petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2.5.1994 has been dismissed.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to notice issued by the Court one Junior Engineer of the Department put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner on 18.3.1994 and the case was adjourned for filing of written statement to 2.5.1994. The person who had put in appearance in fact had no valid authority to put in appearance on behalf of the department and so the attempt ought to have been made to effect service upon a person who could put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. Even Shri Jaswant Singh, Junior Engineer did not inform the S.D.O., who in fact had been authorised to put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, which in fact had led to the passing of the ex parte order and so in the context of the case the matter ought to have been examined by the Court somewhat more sympathetically, especially when the respondent is a government department and has to act through one or the other functionary of the department. In any case, application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was filed and the case is at the initial stage and the other party can be well compensated by costs.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the order. Concededly, the service was effected upon the respondents and Shri Jaswant Singh Junior Engineer put in appearance on behalf of the Executive Engineer. It is not clear whether Jaswant Singh is duly authorised to put in appearance on behalf of the Executive Engineer but all the same one can infer that as one of the functionaries had put in appearance he had a valid authority to do so. This way, Shri Jaswant Singh appears to have misconducted himself in not apprising the S.D.O. or Executive Engineer with regard to the next date of hearing and the steps which ought to have been initiated. Thus, whereas Jaswant Singh had been negligent; all the same the case needs to be examined somewhat more sympathetically, especially when the vital rights of the parties are to be determined by the Court and the petitioner being a department indeed has to act through one or the other functionary. Thus, taking a lenient view of the matter, I accept this revision petition, set aside the order as well as the ex parte order dated 2.5.1994, thus permitting the petitioner to join the proceedings and file written statement, which is, however, subject to payment of another sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs.