Allowed

Delfab Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Jan 2017CRL.A./28/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an appeal order dismissing a case for non-appearance. Noting an inadvertent clerical error where the next hearing date was mistakenly recorded as May 4th instead of March 4th, leading to the dismissal, the court restored the complaint to the trial court with costs against the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 4th April, 2016, is set aside, the complaint is restored to the trial court, and the appellant is ordered to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

Delfab Global Pvt. Ltd. Vs State (Nct of Delhi)… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

¶3

case was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-appearance of appellant

¶4

(complainant).

¶5

Appellant filed the review application, which has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 4 May, 2016, which reads as under:-

¶6

" This is an application wherein it has been submitted that on 23.02.2016, the NDOH was fixed for 04.05.2016 and same was noted by them, however in the order sheet the NDOH got recorded as 04.03.2016. On 04.03.2016 none appeared and matter was fixed as per order-sheet for 04.04.2016. On 04.04.2016 it was taken up and was dismissed for non-appearance.

¶7

It is submitted that since complainant side recorded the NDOH as 04.05.2016, therefore complainant did not appear for 04.03.2016 and 04.04.2016 and even accused side did not appear on said two dates. It is also submitted that one noting of 04.05.2016 as NDOH is available on the cover of case file.

¶8

Submission made in the application considered. Though it appears that grievance of the complainant is genuine but the hands of this court are tied and since matter already stands dismissed b this court, therefore, this court cannot review its order. Hence application stands disposed off.

¶9

Dasti copy of order be given as prayed for."

¶10

The plea of appellant that next date of hearing was wrongly noted as 4'^ May, 2016, instead of 4'^ March, 2016 is a probable and plausible plea. There is every possibility of a litigant or his lawyer noting down a wrong

¶11

¶12

date due to inadvertent error. Appellant was nothing to gain fi-om his nonappearance. It is noted that a perusal of order dated 4^^ May, 2016, as quoted above, also supports the plea of the appellant that date was wrongly noted as 4'^ May, 2016 instead of 4'^ March, 2016. It appears that for this reason even respondent no.2 had also remained unrepresented.

¶13

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 4'*^ April, 2016 is set aside and the complaint is restored, subject to however, costs of ^10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to respondent no.2.

¶14

Parties shall appear before the trial court on 13'^ February, 2017.

¶15

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶16

A.KrPATHAK, J.

¶17

JANUARY 06, 2017/dk

Delfab Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delfab Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Amulya Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mohd Naushad Vs State

Herve Croso Vs State

Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Krishan Govind Vs State