Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 3
Misc DJ 1660/25
CNR No.: DLND010091672025
M/S IND BARATH ENERGIES (THOOTHUKUDI) LTD. Vs.
M/S INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY LIMITED AND ANR.
08.10.2026
Present: Sh. I. S. Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for Applicant.
Sh. Dhananjai Rana, Ld. Counsel for Respondent
no.1.
None for Respondent no.2.
Requisite affidavit has been filed on behalf of
Applicant.
Despite opportunity, respondent no.2 has opted not
to appear and resist the application.
The petitioner herein has moved an application
under Order IX Rule 4 CPC alongwith another application under
Section 5 of Limitation Act.
The application under consideration is treated as an
application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC.
Counsel for respondent no.1 has pointed out that
even on earlier instance, the suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff came
to be dismissed, however, it is submitted that Court may consider
the plea of applicant on its merits.
It is submitted by counsel for the applicant/ plaintiff
that unfortunately the instant file got mixed up with other files
and therefore, due to shifting of office, the file could not be
traced. It is submitted that due to mistake of counsel for the
plaintiff, the party may not be punished.
-1-
-- 1 of 3 --
Perusal of the record reflects that on 22.09.2017 a
plea was taken before the Court regarding maintainability of suit
in wake of Section 18 r/w Section 17 of CPC and in view of
order dated 10.06.2016, passed by Ld. DRT. Thereafter the
plaintiff stopped appearing and the suit eventually came to be
dismissed on 12.07.2018.
Subsequently, the suit was restored by Ld.
Predecessor of this Court on 10.10.2018. Record further reflects
that even thereafter the plaintiff has been extremely casual in
appearing before the Court. Record reflects that the plaintiff was
absent on two consecutive dates i.e. 05.02.2022 and 19.07.2022.
Ultimately, on 19.07.2022 the suit of the plaintiff again came to
be dismissed. Interestingly, the plaintiff remained in a state of
slumber for almost half a decade and now, at this belated
juncture, an application for restoration has been moved.
It is sacrosanct principle of law that matters ought to
be disposed off on merits rather than mere technicalities.
However, there is an equally pressing concern which cannot be
altogether ignored by the Court. One cannot afford to turn
Nelson’s eye towards mounting arrears and approach of some of
the litigants to litigate at leisure needs to be checked.
In the interest of justice, the matter stands restored
subject to cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- to be
deposited with Lawyers Welfare Fund, New Delhi District and
balance Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with DLSA, New Delhi
District.
-2-
-- 2 of 3 --
Upon production of cost receipts, let the matter be
restored to its original number. Ahlmad is directed to take
necessary steps for restoration of original suit.
Application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC
alongwith application under Section 5 of Limitation Act,
accordingly, stands allowed.
Upon payment of cost and restoration of main suit,
the instant file be consigned to record room. However, a copy of
the instant order for record purposes, be retained on the main file.
List, the original suit for consideration on the issue
of maintainability in terms of order dated 22.09.2017 in the
matter on 08.02.2027.
(Dharmender Rana)
District Judge – 01
PHC/New Delhi/08.10.2026
-3-
-- 3 of 3 --