SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN Vs. FIRM SUGANCHAND RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application No. 145/90 filed under Order 41 Rule 17 and 19, CPC, applicant Santosh Kumar Jain (defendant appellant) prayed for recalling judgment dated 12-11-90 passed by another bench of this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 7/82 (for short CFA No. 7/82).

(2.) This Court by its judgment dated 12-11-90 decided on merits and partly allowed aforesaid CFA No. 7/82 directing that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 39,554.11p. (as disclosed in Exh. 20) with interest @ 12% p.a. from 4-8-69 Bill payment from the defendant. This Court considered relevant pleadings, evidence of the parties and also the impugned judgment dt. 28-5-81 passed in Civil Suit No. 60/79 (2/72) by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City. Jaipur against which aforesaid CFA No. 7/82 was preferred. However, this Court by its judgment decided aforesaid CFA No. 7/82 in the absence of the learned counsel for both the parties. Hence this restoration application.

(3.) The contention of Shri Sudesh Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant is that when the case was listed for hearing at S.No. 35 on 12-11-90 before Hon. Mr. S. N. Bhargava J., it was transferred to another bench of Hon. Mr. D. L. Mehta, J. on the same day while aforesaid CFA No. 7/82 was decided on merits in absence of applicant's counsel namely Mr. Arun Kumar Bhandari, who was not aware of the case having been transferred to another Bench and that it was only when he was informed by Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhandari, Advocate at 12 noon that his client's case has been decided by the Bench of Hon. Mr. D. L. Mehata, J. On the basis of aforesaid facts, Shri Bansal contended that absence of applicant's counsel Shri Arun Bhandari on 12-11-90 was bona fide and not deliberate.