Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Misc DJ 3919/24
Canara Bank Vs. M/S GOLDEN AROW THROUG ITS PROPRIETOR
MS. NIBHA
21.01.2025
Present:- Sh. Sumit Saurav, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff
through video conferencing.
This is an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC seeking
setting aside of order dated 12.04.2024 and for restoration of the suit.
File called.
It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff that
the court vide order dated 12.04.2024 was pleased to dismiss in default the
suit of the plaintiff for non-appearance. He further submits that the present
application was filed by the applicant/plaintiff on 20.11.2024 through e-
mode and there is delay of seven months in filing the present application.
He further submits that the counsel for the appicant/plaintiff was under the
impression that the present matter is listed for some other date and
therefore, he could not appear before the court on 12.04.2024 which led
this court to dismiss in default the present suit. He further submits that
public money is involved in the present case and therefore, prays that the
present application be allowed and order dated 12.04.2024 be set aside.
Heard. File perused.
Perusal of the record shows that on 08.07.2023, the court
directed the applicant/plaintiff to file fresh address of the
non-applicant/defendant and listed the matter for 18.09.2023. As per
ordersheet dated 18.09.2023, steps were not taken by the
applicant/plaintiff as no fresh address of the non-applicant/defendant was
filed by the applicant/plaintiff and considering the conduct of the
-- 1 of 2 --
applicant/plaintiff, the court imposed cost of Rs.5,000/- upon the
applicant/plaintiff and the matter was adjourned for 08.01.2024. On
08.01.2024, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff filed an application
under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC and the court kept the said application for
consideration and directed the applicant/plaintiff to take steps for the
service of the non-applicant/defendant for 12.04.2024, in terms of order
dated 31.01.2023, details of which are mentioned in the said order dated
08.01.2024. On 12.04.2024, none appeared on behalf of the
applicant/plaintiff and due to non-appearance of the applicant/plaintiff, the
court dismissed in default the present suit. Admittedly, the cost so imposed
by the court on 18.09.2023, has also not been deposited by the
applicant/plaintiff. There is no doubt that public money is involved in the
present matter, however, the conduct of the applicant/plaintiff is apparent
from the proceedings. The instant application so filed by the
applicant/plaintiff, also does not show any plausible reason and the
grounds so taken by the applicant/plaintiff is absolutely without any base.
No doubt the court is aware of the fact that nobody should be condemned
unheard and an a party should be given opportunity to represent its best
case before the court but the conduct of the applicant/plaintiff shows that
there is blatant fault and inaction on the part of the applicant/plaintiff
which does not call for any interference for setting aside of order
12.04.2024. Thus, the court does not find any merit in the present
application and accordingly, the present application under Order 9 Rule 9
CPC is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
(Anurag Sain)
District Judge (Commercial Court-01),
Patiala House Courts Complex,
New Delhi/21.01.2025
-- 2 of 2 --