C.R.P.--105/2014. Case: SHRI DAYA CHAND THROUGH LR MUKESH KUMAR Vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT) BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | C.R.P.--105/2014 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 18, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. No.105 /2014
% 18th December, 2014 SHRI DAYA CHAND THROUGH LR MUKESH KUMAR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Tyagi, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE ASSESSING OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT) BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Pathak, Advocate.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.11791/2014 (exemption)
-
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of.
+ C.R.P. No.105/2014 and C.M. Nos.11790/2014(stay) 11792/2014(condonation of delay)
-
This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff impugning the order of trial court dated 19.3.2014 by which the trial court has allowed applications filed by the respondent/defendant under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and consequently set the ex parte order dated 19.4.2012 proceeding the respondent/defendant parte and also the ex parte judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012.
-
The case of the respondent/defendant in the application Order IX Rule 13 CPC was that it had engaged a counsel, and it was relying upon the said counsel, but the said counsel for the respondent/defendant the trial court for no apparent reasons stopped appearing and therefore fact that the respondent/defendant was proceeded ex parte was not to knowledge of the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant came know about it being proceeded ex parte when the legal retainer came to court in another matter of the defendant company, and when he came know about the respondent/defendant being proceeded ex parte in the whereafter, the new counsel was engaged who inspected the file thereafter the subject applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were filed.
-
At the outset, it is required to be noted that petitioner/plaintiff did not choose to file any replies to the applications of the respondent/defendant under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. Once, no replies are filed, the contents of applications have to be taken as deemed to be admitted as correct in view of Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 141 CPC. Therefore, the petitioner having not disputed that the respondent/defendant had engaged the counsel who committed negligence by not appearing and not informing
respondent/defendant of his non-appearance in the suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial