CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1998) 01 DEL CK 0023

Alka Aggarwal vs Union of India and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 27 January 1998 · Citation: (1999) 4 CivCC 706 : (1999) 3 RCR(Civil) 535

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manmohan Sarin, J
CASE NUMBER
F. Application No. 371 of 1996

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 350 words

FAO No. 371/96

1.

No one as present on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 who have been served.

2.

The case of the appellant is that the appellant''s counsel while attending the Court on 10th July, 1996 noted the next date of hearing as 12th August, 1996 while, in fact, it was 12th July, 1996. It is on account of this bona fide mistake that on 12th July, 1996 none appeared before the Court and the matter was dismissed in default. Learned Additional District Judge rejected the application under Order 9, Rule 4 taking into consideration the factors such as the application under Order 9, Rule 4 having been signed and supported by the affidavit of Shri Arun Kumar, Advocate while the application for limitation had been signed and supported by the affidavit of another Advocate Shri Dharamvir Singh Gupta. Learned Additional District Judge also took into account, that the appellant had engaged four lawyers one being Shri Mansoor Alam Khan vide Vakalatnama dated 7.7.1995, and second Shri Madan Lal Malhotra and 3rd Shri Girish Malhotra Advocate vide Vakalatnama dated 14.12.1995. The fourth Counsel is Mr. Arun Kumar in whose favor vakalatnmama dated 14.1.996 is filed, and the last one is Shri Dharam Vir Singh Gupta in whose favor vakalatnama dated 16.8.1996 has been executed by the plaintiff.

3.

I have gone through the impugned order as well as also heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Additional District Judge appears to have taken rather a Hiper technical view of the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not oppose the application and submits that the application may be allowed subject to costs and further directions.

4.

In my view the appellant has made and shown sufficient cause for non appearance on the 12th July, 1996. The impugned order is accordingly set aside subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/ as costs to the respondent No. 1, 5 to 7, and Rs. 1500/ to Delhi Legal Aid Services Authority, to be deposited within a week from today.

5.

Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 10.2.1998.