← Library
High Court of DelhiCM(M)/1292/2016

R P Goel v. Usha Rani Singh & ORS.

2016-12-19Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath2 pages

$~A-61 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CM(M) 1292/2016 & CM Nos.46336-37/2016 R P GOEL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Mukesh M.Goel & Ms.Arti Rawal, Advocates versus USHA RANI SINGH & ORS.

..... Respondents Through None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 19.12.2016 CM No.46336/2016 (exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 1292/2016 & CM No.46337/2016(stay) 1.

By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 24.08.2016 by which an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC filed by the some of the respondents was allowed.

2.

The said respondents were proceeded ex-parte on 16.12.2011. The present application has been filed subsequently on 12.01.2015. 3.

Essentially the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the suit was at the stage of the final argument when the respondent have now filed the present application which contains worthwhile explanation or sufficient cause as to why they could not appear on the date on 16.12.2011 when they were proceeded ex-parte. He submits that the impugned order is accordingly erroneous. 4.

It may be noted that the dispute pertains to the residents of the Mayur

Bagh Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'society'). The petitioner seeks a decree of Rs.20 lacs against the respondents on account of damages. The petitioner and some of the respondents are the members of the society.

5.

A perusal of the application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC would show that it is pleaded that the respondents were served with summons and few of them filed their written statement. However in between the respondents were approached by some other residents on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents were assured that the petitioner shall not pursue the said case anymore, hence, the respondents took it as if this case has been withdrawn. It is stated that on 22.07.2014 Mr.R.S. Chawla has gone to the court for evidence in the case and then they came to know about the pendency of the said case. Hence, they appeared before the court on 10.09.2014.

6.

The trial court has taken a view that there is sufficient cause for nonappearance on 16.12.2011 and based on these averments set aside the exparte order. 7.

In my opinion, sufficient cause has been shown. In the given background of the litigation, the respondents could have been believed the assurance given that the matter could not be pursued further by the petitioner.

8.

There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. All the pending applications are also dismissed. JAYANT NATH, J.

DECEMBER 19, 2016/v