AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.M. Malik, J
Counsel for the appellant heard at length. The original OA was filed in December, 2006. Thereafter the learned Trial Court directed the appellant to publish the proclamation vide Order dated 5.12.2008. The said publication was effected on 13.12.2008. However, this fact could not be brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court. Counsel for the appellant explained that on 31.3.2011, Proxy Counsel Mr. Sunil appeared for Mr. Vineet Khanna, Advocate. Consequently, this fact could not be brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court.
This is a very serious matter. It clearly goes to show the negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the Bank. It is difficult to fathom as to why the Proxy Counsel appeared before the learned Trial Court and he misled the learned Trial Court. This is why the Court always insists that the Proxy Counsel should not appear and the main Counsel should appear personally.
However, I admit the appeal but there is no need to summon the respondents because they were never served in this appeal. The appeal can be disposed of in the absence of the respondents. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and that public money is involved, I, therefore, allow the appeal subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as costs which be deposited with the Legal Aid, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and the appeal stands restored. All these facts would be brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court who may pass the appropriate order or may direct a fresh publication as per law.
Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of.
Copies of this order be furnished to the appellant as per law and another copy be sent to the learned DRT. The appellant is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 15.6.2011. Proof of deposit of costs shall be shown to the learned Trial Court on the said date.