Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs M/S Radhey Shyam & Anr. on 7 August, 2009

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                             Date of Reserve: July 28, 2009
                                              Date of Order: August 07, 2009

+ IA 990/2009 in OMP 553/2006
%                                                               07.08.2009
      Municipal Corporation of Delhi                            ...Petitioner
      Through: Mr.Anshuman Jain, Advocate

      Versus

      M/s Radhey Shyam & Anr.                           ...Respondents
      Through: Mr. Raman Kapur and Mr. Honey Taneja, Advocates


      JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.    Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


      ORDER

1. This application under Section 151 CPC has been made by the

applicant/petitioner for restoration of the petition which was dismissed in

default on 15th July 2008, as none appeared for the petitioner on 31st March

2008 and 15th July 2008, i.e. on two dates of hearing.

2. A perusal of record would show that prior to 31st March 2008, counsel

for petitioner was Mr. Nitin Monga who was putting appearance up to 31st

March 2008 but he did not appear thereafter. The Petitioner changed the

counsel and after that present counsel had been appearing regularly. It is

stated in the application that the petitioner did not receive intimation with

respect to the directions given by the Court for filing rejoinder nor the

petitioner was aware that petitioner was not being represented by the

counsel on last two dates. A prayer is made that the present petition be

OMP 553/2006 MCD v.M/s Radhey Shyam & Anr. Page 1 Of 2
restored since huge financial implications were involved. An unconditional

apology was tendered by petitioner for non filing of rejoinder and non

representation.

3. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner has been prosecuting

the case diligently before 31st March 2008 but after that it seems that the

earlier counsel, who was removed by the petitioner, had become careless and

he neither appeared in the Court nor informed the petitioner about his

reasons for non appearance nor made any arrangement for appearance in the

Court on his behalf.

4. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I allow this

application for restoration of the petition subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- which

may be paid within four weeks to the respondent.

5. The application stands disposed of.

OMP 553/2006

List this petition for arguments and disposal in the category of “finals”

at its own turn. Rejoinder be filed by the petitioner within 8 weeks, after

payment of costs.

August 07, 2009                                 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




OMP 553/2006        MCD v.M/s Radhey Shyam & Anr.                Page 2 Of 2