RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant under Order XLIII Rule 1 (d) of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 07.10.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Misc. Case No. 128/1996 whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the appellant under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C., for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 20.01.1990.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs had filed the suit against the appellant-defendant for recovery of L 3,00,000/- with interest. It was alleged in the suit by the plaintiffs that on 25.06.1980, the respondent No. 2 had handed over its Helicopter to one M/s Aadarh Road Carriers, Bangalore when the said Helicopter was being taken in a truck towards Delhi, the bus bearing registration No. RSB-4130 of the appellant-corporation hit the said truck, as the result thereof the Helicopter got damaged. Since the respondent No. 1 insurance company had insured the said helicopter for its transit risk, the respondent No. 1 company paid the claim amount to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter both the respondents filed the suit seeking recovery of the said claim amount from the appellant- corporation. In the said suit, it appears that the appellant-corporation had filed the written statement through the Advocate Shri Purshottam Vyas. However, thereafter, the appellant- corporation did not lead any evidence, which resulted into passing of the ex-parte decree by the Court on 20.01.1990. It further appears that the respondents thereafter filed the execution petition No. 5/92 seeking execution of the decree in question in which the executing court had directed to deduct the amount of L 6,23,260/- from the account of the appellantcorporation. According to the appellant-corporation, it came to know about the said ex-parte decree only when the said amount was sought to be deducted from its account and therefore an application under Order IX Rule 13, seeking setting aside of the said decree was made before the trial court. The said application has been rejected by the trial court vide the impugned order.

(3.) It has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Rastogi for the appellant-corporation that the Advocate Mr. Purshottam Vyas who was engaged for the appellant-corporation in the suit, had some disputes with the corporation, and therefore he did not inform the corporation about the progress in the suit, which resulted into passing of ex-parte decree. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani And Others, 1996 3 SCC 132, in support of his submissions that the procedural delay in filing the application should be considered as sufficient cause. He also submitted that because of the negligence on the part of the Advocate, the appellant should not be made to suffer.