NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SMT. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein stood impleaded, as, a defendant in Civil Suit No. 91-1 of 2010, as, stood instituted before the learned trial Court, by respondent Bimla Devi, wherein, she claimed rendition of a decree, for, pecuniary damages, comprised in a sum of Rs. 2,42,504/-, against the petitioner herein, impleaded as, a, defendant therein.

(2.) The learned trial Court by making an order, on 16.08.2010, and sparked by want of appearance thereat, by the authorsied official of the defendant or, of, its duly authorised counsel, hence, directed, qua the defendant/petitioner herein, being amenable to be proceeded against ex-parte. However, belatedly therefrom, in the year, 2016, an application, cast under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC, was, preferred by the aggrieved defendant/petitioner herein, before the learned trial Court, casting therein a relief, for, setting aside the order pronounced, on 16.08.2010, whereunder, for want of appearance thereat, of, the authorised representative, of, the defendant or of its duly authorised counsel, it was directed to be proceeded against ex-parte. The application, only, casts simplicitor averments, qua immediately on acquisition, of knowledge qua the aforesaid factum, it being preferred before the learned trial Court. Upon the aforesaid application, the learned trial Court recorded disaffirmative findings, and, the defendant/petitioner herein, being aggrieved therefrom, has, hence motioned this Court.

(3.) Preeminently, the petitioner herein, is a corporate body, and, is equipped with the requisite manpower, for, ensuring effective management, of, all its cases/litigations pending, before, the courts besides when (a) duly authorised counsel, of the defendant/petitioner herein, despite, his awareness, vis-a-vis, the date, whereat proceedings upon the apposite civil suit, were embarked, upon, by the learned trial court, yet, his wanting to record his presence thereat, and, also despite, a, corporate entity, being enjoined to hold repeated correspondence, with him, for its hence acquiring knowledge, vis-a-vis, the scheduling, of the proceedings, in the apt litigation, (b) whereas, with evident apt dereliction(s) rather being made by both the duly authorised counsel, and, by the officers, who man the legal desk, of, the corporate entity, nor when any valid, and, tenable explanation, is, purveyed, for the apt dereliction(s), (c) thereupon, the apt derelictions, are, wanting in bonafides, rather they are ingrained with vices, of, deliberateness and gross negligence, hence, the dismissal, of the petitioner/defendant's application, for setting aside the order of 16.08.2010, whereunder, it was proceeded against exparte, is both apt and tenable.