Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: MISC SCJ 94/24
SUNIL TANEJA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
21.05.2025
Present:- Sh. Yogender Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicant.
None for non applicant.
1. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the copy of
application has been served upon the WhatsApp number of the
counsel for non applicant. However, no reply has been filed by the
non applicant.
2. The present application u/o IX Rule 9 CPC, alongwith the
accompanying application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking
condonation of delay, is taken up for consideration and disposal.
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
could not appear in the suit due to lack of information from his
previous counsel. He states that it was only in July, 2024, upon
receiving a court notice in another civil suit, that the applicant
became aware of the situation. When the plaintiff contacted his
former counsel, no clear update was provided. Subsequently, in
September, 2024, the plaintiff approached him who, upon perusal
of the case records in October 2024, discovered that the suit had
been dismissed in default vide order dated 25.10.2023.
4. It is further submitted that the applicant has a meritorious
case and would suffer irreparable loss if the application is not
allowed. The absence of the applicant, it is urged, was not
intentional. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed
on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Commissioner
Mysore Urban Vs. S.S. Sarvesh, Civil Appeal no. 1463 of 2019.
Cont..
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
5. Despite service, no reply has been filed by the non applicant
to oppose the application.
6. I have heard the submissions and perused the record. The
Code of Civil Procedure is designed to facilitate justice rather than
to impose penalties. It is always desirable that cases be adjudicated
on merits. The applicant has attributed the non appearance to lack
of communication and misleading assurances by his previous
counsel. No serious prejudice would be caused to the non applicant
if the case is restored, and any inconvenience can be remedied
through imposition of costs.
7. In view of the foregoing, the delay in filing the application is
condoned. The application u/o IX Rule 9 CPC is allowed, subject
to payment of cost of Rs. 4000/- to the non applicant. The
application is accordingly disposed of.
8. The suit be restored to its original number. List the suit for
further proceedings on 24.07.2025.
9. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
A copy of this order be tagged with the suit.
(AYUSH SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE/EAST
KKD COURTS/21.05.2025
-- 2 of 2 --