Dismissed

Gill India Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Tapati Sarkar

Delhi HC15 Mar 2016CM(M)/257/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two exemption applications and dismissed a pending petition. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of an application under Section 151 CPC seeking cross-examination due to delay, contended it should be treated under Order XVIII Rule 17. The Court rejected this, citing delay and lack of bona fides.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

Gill India Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tapati… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 257/2016

¶3

GILL INDIA COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD

¶4

..... Petitioner Through Mr.Aaditya Vijay Kumar and Ms.Liza M. Baruah, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

TAPATI SARKAR

¶7

..... Respondent Through Nemo.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR O R D E R % 15.03.2016

¶9

C.M. No.9471/2016 (exemption) C.M. No.9472/2016 (exemption)

¶10

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Applications disposed of.

¶11

CM(M) 257/2016 & C.M. No.9526/2016 (stay)

¶12

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2016 vide which his application filed under Section 151 CPC stood dismissed. Vide this application the prayer made was that the defendant/petitioner be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff which had been declined as the Court had noted that the evidence of the plaintiff stood closed on a much earlier date.

¶13

Record shows that the present suit is a suit for recovery of

¶14

Rs.1,33,333/- against the defendant. Defendant was proceeded ex parte on 16.3.2010. Efforts were made to get the ex parte order set aside but all efforts failed. The application filed under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC stood dismissed. This was on 15.11.2011. Review petition against that order stood dismissed on 23.7.2012. The present application was filed on 07.02.2012. Although this was an application under Section 151 of the CPC yet the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this application be treated as an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC and his arguments on this submission is based on a judgment of the Apex court reported as [2011] 4 SCR 31 K.K.Velusamy v. N.Palanisamy is noted. Even presuming that this application is presumed to be an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC, the law of limitation cannot be given a goby; it cannot be ignored.

¶15

The conduct of the petitioner was lackadaisical and was correctly appreciated by the Trial Judge. The Trial Judge had noted that in spite of various opportunities, the plaintiff did not get the ex parte order set aside which was passed against him on 16.3.2010. Attention has been drawn to the orders dated 09.8.2010, 19.11.2010 and 09.12.2010. The petitioner in spite of all opportunities did not take steps to get that order set aside. On 04.3.2011, the Court had reiterated that no application has been filed; even under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC; it was on that date that PW-1 was examined-in-chief and discharged. On 04.3.2011, the petitioner was not present for cross-examination of PW-1. His submission that he had wrongly noted the date as 17.3.2011 even presuming it to be correct yet he having filed the present application

¶16

after almost one year i.e. on 07.02.2012 again shows the casual attitude of the petitioner; it is bordering on negligence; such a litigant deserves no sympathy from Court.

¶17

Impugned order in this background dismissing his application under Section 151 of the CPC suffers from no infirmity. This petition has been filed mala fide. It has no merit. It is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-

¶18

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶19

MARCH 15, 2016 ndn

Gill India Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Tapati Sarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gill India Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Tapati Sarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shehnaz Begum & Ors. Vs Lata Mittal & Ors.

Inderpal Singh Vs Sanjay Sharma & Anr.

Abeer Gupta Vs M/S Bsn Medical Pvt. Ltd.

Tulsi Dass Ahuja & Anr. Vs Chattar Singh (Since Deceased) Thr His Lrs & Anr.

Kasana Educational and Cultural Society & Anr. Vs Pradeep Kumar Dubey & Anr.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shiv Kumar & Ors.

Ranjiv Khanna Vs Mohd Iqbal & Anr.

Rajender Kumar Goel Vs M/S Jagson Colorchem Limited

Harish Chandra Bali Vs Ajay Kumar Bessoya

Shehnaz Begum & Ors. Vs Lata Mittal & Ors.

Inderpal Singh Vs Sanjay Sharma & Anr.

Sri Aurobindo Education Society (Regd.) Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Dinesh Kumar Mehra &Ors Vs Chairman Dct, Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Vijay Prakash Verma Vs Prabha Vatsa