PETITIONER: UCO BANK Vs. RESPONDENT: IYENGAR CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1993 BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 399 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard on merits.
3. A suit for specific performance was filed by the
respondent, M/s lyengar Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.,
against the appellant United Commercial Bank in the Delhi
High Court. The suit was listed on 29-7-1988 for filing
documents and their admission or denial, when the defendant-
Bank remained absent. It was
+ Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13246 of 1992
400
then listed before the learned Single Judge of the High
Court on 12-8-1988, when the defendant was again absent.
The learned Single Judge proceeded ex parte against the
defendant on that date and the suit was then listed on 9-9-
1988 as a short-cause for final disposal. On that day also,
none appeared for the defendant in the suit. Accordingly,
the learned Single Judge decreed the suit ex parte on that
date. Thereafter on 9-10-1988, an application for setting
aside the ex parte decree was made under Order IX Rule XIII
CPC by the defendant-Bank’s counsel Shri A.N. Tewari,
supported by his own affidavit. That application was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 6-7-1989.
Thereafter, a review application was filed by Shri A.N.
Tewari, which too was dismissed on 31-7-1991. It was only
thereafter that the defendant-Bank learnt of the ex parte
decree passed against it. Accordingly, it filed an appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court through another
counsel on 30-4-1992 against the orders dismissing the
application for setting aside the ex parte decree as well as
the review application. This appeal was dismissed on 23-9-
1992 by the Division Bench as time barred as well as on
merits. Hence this appeal by special leave.
4.The appellant has adduced sufficient material to
support its submission that it was not aware of the passing
of the ex parte decree and that having engaged Shri A.N.
Tewari as its counsel, on the basis of the information given
by the counsel from time to time, it was under the
impression that the suit was pending and was being properly
contested. It has also been shown from these documents that
it was much after the passing of the ex parte decree that
the appellant came to know the factual position and it was
then that the appellant took further steps by engaging
another counsel in place of Shri A.N. Tewari.
5.In view of the facts and circumstances emerging from
the material placed before us, we are satisfied that this is
a fit case for setting aside the ex parte decree passed by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 9-9-1988 and
the subsequent orders dismissing the application for setting
aside the ex parte decree and the review application
together with the order of the Division Bench dismissing the
appeal. The parties are required to be relegated to the
position as on 29-7-1988. This is necessary in view of the
fact that 29-7-1988 had been fixed in the Court as the last
chance for filing of documents and admission and denial
thereof by the parties.
6.For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The
ex parte decree dated 9-9-1988, the orders dismissing the
application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the
review application as well as the order of the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissing the appeal are set aside
and the parties are relegated to the position which existed
immediately prior to 29-7-1988. Consequently, the parties
will have one last chance only for filing of documents and
admission and denial thereof. No further opportunity for
this purpose would be granted by the High Court. The
parties shall appear in the High Court on 11-10-1993 for
taking further directions in this behalf, including the
fixing of the date for filing the documents and admission
and denial thereof. The appellant shall pay Rs 10,000 as
costs to the respondent on or before 11-10-1993.
7.In the facts and circumstances of this case, we also
request the High Court to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible.
401
8.In view of the statement made by the learned Solicitor
General that proceedings have been initiated against Shri
A.N. Tewari in the Bar Council as well as in Court, the
notice issued to Shri A.N. Tewari in this matter is
discharged.