Allowed¶14

Himachal Pradesh Beverage Ltd. v. M/S Chanchal Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jan 2025OMP/1163/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP Beverage Ltd vs. Chanchal Kumar and others; COMS No. 14 of 2018; OMP No. 1163 of 2024; Order 9 Rule 9 CPC; recall of order dated 22.12.2023; suit dismissed for non-prosecution; restoration of suit to original number; counsel appointed Additional Advocate General did not appear or intimate plaintiff; plaintiff-company not to suffer for counsel's omission; Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge; 01.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Recall of order dated 22.12.2023 and restoration of the civil suit (COMS No. 14 of 2018) to its original number. ¶14

Himachal Pradesh Beverage Ltd. Vs M/S Chanchal Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Recall of order dated 22.12.2023 and restoration of the civil suit (COMS No. 14 of 2018) to its original number.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22.12.2023 dismissing the suit for non-prosecution should be recalled and the suit heard on merits, given that the plaintiff's non-appearance was due to its counsel having been appointed Additional Advocate General without intimating the plaintiff-company.

¶13

Court's answer

As it was not disputed that the counsel earlier representing the plaintiff-Company stood appointed as Additional Advocate General and therefore did not appear, and as the plaintiff-Company cannot be made to suffer on account of acts of omission on the part of the Counsel, the application for recall of the dismissal order is allowed.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The application is allowed; order dated 22.12.2023 is recalled and the civil suit is restored to its original number.

¶14

Key takeaways

The counsel earlier representing the plaintiff should have been careful and should have intimated the plaintiff about his inability to appear before the Court, which obviously was not done in the present case.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil suit COMS No. 14 of 2018 (HP Beverage Ltd vs. Chanchal Kumar and others) had been dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 22.12.2023. In OMP No. 1163 of 2024, filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff sought recall of that order, explaining that its counsel had been appointed Additional Advocate General and had neither appeared before the Court nor intimated the company of his inability to appear. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (order dated January 01, 2025), held that the plaintiff-Company cannot be made to suffer on account of acts of omission on the part of its counsel, allowed the application, recalled the order dated 22.12.2023 and restored the civil suit to its original number, while observing that the earlier counsel should have intimated the plaintiff about his inability to appear.

¶1

HP Beverage Ltd vs. Chanchal Kumar and others

¶2

COMS No. 14 of 2018

¶3

01.01.2025 Present:

¶4

Mr. Aditya Sood, Advocate, for the applicant/plaintiff. Mrs. Srishti Chauhan, Advocate for non-applicant/ defendant No. 1.

¶5

Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for nonapplicant/defendant No. 2.

¶6

Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate for non-applicant/defendant No. 3.

¶7

Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate for nonapplicant/defendant No. 4.

¶8

Ms. Shivani Priya, Advocate vice Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate for non-applicant/defendant No. 5.

¶9

Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate for non-applicant/ defendant No. 6.

¶10

OMP No. 1163 of 2024

¶11

By way of this application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant has made a prayer for recall of order dated 22.12.2023, in terms whereof, the suit was dismissed nor non-prosecution.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the applicant has apprised the Court that non-representation on behalf of the plaintiff on the date concerned was for the reason that despite the fact that a Counsel stood engaged by the plaintiff-Company, he did not appear before the Court nor any intimation was sent by him to the Company with regard to his inability to put in appearance, who stood appointed as Additional Advocate General. Learned

¶13

Counsel for the applicant thus prayed that as the nonappearance on behalf of the plaintiff was not intentional, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, order dated 22.12.2023 is recalled and the suit is heard on merit.

¶14

Though, learned Counsel for the non-applicants have opposed the application, but this Court is of the considered view that as it has not been disputed before the Court that the learned Counsel, who was earlier representing the plaintiff-Company, stood appointed as Additional Advocate General and as under these circumstances, he did not appear before the Court on behalf of the plaintiff, the civil suit was dismissed for non prosecution. Though, learned Counsel earlier representing the plaintiff should have been careful and should have intimated the plaintiff about his inability to appear before the Court, which obviously appears not to have been done in the present case, but then, the plaintiff-Company cannot be made to suffer on account of acts of omission on the part of the Counsel. Accordingly, this application is allowed and order dated 22.12.2023 is recalled and the civil suit is restored to its original

¶15

number.

¶16

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶17

January 01, 2025 (narender)

Himachal Pradesh Beverage Ltd. v. M/S Chanchal Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himachal Pradesh Beverage Ltd. v. M/S Chanchal Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Vs Parkesh Chand

National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Sunita

Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

Monika Kumari Mehta Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pankaj Sethi and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Sanjay Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.