KAILASH PATI MAHATHA Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been preferred by petitioner Kailash Pati Mahatha against the order dated 20.12.20012, passed by learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro in Civil Misc. Case No.32 of 2011 whereby the Title Appeal No.33 of 2007, which stood dismissed for default on 15.09.2011, was restored.

(2.) It is contended that the impugned order suffers with illegality. The grounds on which the appeal was restored is not permissible as per the provision contained in Order XVII Rule 2(c) C.P.C. The objection by the petitioner and other respondents was raised but it was not addressed in the impugned order and the Court has simply allowed the restoration on the ground 'for the ends of substantive justice'. Since the reason assigned for restoration by learned Principal Distirict Judge is not cogent and tenable, the impugned order dated 20.12.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.32 of 2011 is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has submitted that no adjournment was sought on the ground of engagement of concerned lawyer in another Court in part heard matter, rather the case was called out and it was dismissed because the conducting counsel failed to remain present at the relevant point of time. Learned Principal District Judge has rightly restored the said Title Appeal No.33 of 2007 on the ground of providing substantive justice. Furthermore, one of the respondents M/s Electro Steel Integrated Ltd. and Others had appeared in connection with L.P.A. No.489 of 2010 and L.P.A. No.26 of 2011 in which their Lordships vide order No.12 dated 6th March, 2013 have given direction to learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro to decide the appeal i.e. Title Appeal No.33 of 2007 expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It is also pointed out that vide order dated 05.04.2013, passed in present civil revision, further proceeding in Titile Appeal No.33 of 2007 has been stayed which is not in accordance with the judicial discipline. The opposite party/appellant is always ready to argue said Title Appeal No.33 of 2007 on merit as and when given opportunity.