Allowed

Employee State Insurance Corporation v. M/S Bhagwat Prasad Aatam Prakash

Uttarakhand HC13 May 2013AO/123/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the composite rejection of a set-aside application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and a delay condonation application. The court quashed the ex parte decree, restored the suit, and directed the trial court to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejected under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC set aside; application for set-aside allowed; ex parte order set aside; suit restored for trial.

Employee State Insurance Corporation Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Appeal From Order No. 123 of 2012 With CLMA No. 2706 of 2012

¶3

Employee State Insurance Corporation, Office Wing No. 4 Panchdeep Bhawan, Shivpuri, Prem Nagar, Dehradun through its Assistant Director.

¶4

….…..Defendant/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Bhagwat Prasad Aatam Prakash, Haridwar Road Rishikesh District Dehradun through its partner Sri Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

…….Plaintiff/respondent

¶8

Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate, present for the defendant/appellant. Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, present for the plaintiff/respondent.

¶9

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

This appeal is directed against order dated 24.01.2012, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun, in Misc. E.S.I. Case No. 30 of 2006, whereby said court has rejected the application of defendant/appellant moved under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short C.P.C.).

¶12

Brief facts of the case are that ESI Suit No. 01 of 2004, was filed by the plaintiff/respondent M/s Bhagwat Prasad Aatam Prakash against the appellant Employee State

¶13

¶14

Insurance Corporation and its Recovery Officer for injunction from realizing the dues under E.S.I.C. Act, 1948. Said suit was decreed exparte by the trial court on 29.10.2005, against which, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. 1908, alongwith Delay Condonation Application under the Limitation Act, 1963, was moved before the trial court on 13.02.2006. The trial court vide its impugned order dated 24.01.2012, allowed the Delay Condonation Application but rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court has erred in law in rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. and not allowing the defendant to contest the suit, particularly when, the Delay Condonation Application was allowed by it.

¶16

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial court has not considered the explanation given by the defendant for absence on the date fixed for hearing, and rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., merely on the ground that the defendant/appellant had knowledge of the suit and he was represented through its counsel. The explanation for absence on the date fixed for hearing, appears to be sufficient.

¶17

In the above circumstances, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶18

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.01.2012, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, in Misc. ESI Case No. 30 of 2006, is hereby set aside. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. moved by the defendant before the trial court, is hereby allowed. Exparte order dated 29.10.2005, passed by the trial court in ESIC Case No. 01 of 2004 is hereby set aside. ESI Suit No. 01 of 2004 stands restored. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case and decide the same in accordance with law.

¶20

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

¶21

13.05.2013 JM

Employee State Insurance Corporation v. M/S Bhagwat Prasad Aatam Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employee State Insurance Corporation v. M/S Bhagwat Prasad Aatam Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shanti and Ors. Vs Manoj Kumar Khanna and Ors.

Syeeda Begum Vs Basant Kumar and Others

Kanwar Dalinderjit Singh Vs Narayan Pal

Minni Bansal Vs Anirudra Agarwal

Sevak Ram Vs Smt. Chanchal Gupta

Smt Neema Chaisali Vs Sankar Dutt Chaushali