Decided on January 13,2004



D.C.Thakur, - (1.) THE non-appearance of a defendant that has been done despite the several opportunities, already given to such defendant to make his appearance, the non-filing by the said defendant of the written statement that has been traditionally destined not only to meet and defend the author of such written statement against all sorts of the application-allegations, as are aptly being disclosed through the application preferred by a specially categorised suitor, but may also disclose his favourable case and to defeat distinctly the latter's case, the non-participation by the said defendant and the other related factors, that shall, after being taken together describe rightly such defendant as the mere, impleaded defendant and as the person belonging to the opposite pole of the so-called vigilant and active and resistant defendant, are no doubt the reasons to become responsible for and to suffice the undesired injustice to be inflicted upon such defendant. Such injustice may be popularly designated as the self-caused, self-inflicted or imposed injustice; and it may also happen in or occur with either a defendant or a plaintiff. But the judicial system always seriously affords to prevent such injustice from taking place; in spite of such sincere, serious efforts taken by itself, such injustice fails to be arrested or resisted in some unwanted situation, where the judgment to be pronounced mechanically has not been expected to be the pious judicial duty. Every judgment, whether delivered ex parte or on contest, should be precisely founded on a set of the sustainable and sound reasoning. On the other hand, such injustice shall not be predominantly occasioned to emerge at the time of an appropriate order or decree to be pronounced against any adversely affected and prejudiced person, if the judgment pronouncing body becomes able to find on the basis of the available materials on record that the said person, against whom such order or decree has been likely to be passed or pronounced, has been unable to avail or has wilfully abstained from availing himself of the several opportunities given by an adjudicating judicial body or an authority at the cost of its valuable time.
(2.) The above observation is not only appearing to be sound theoretically, but it has been also found true to fact. For such purpose, this Tribunal is endeavouring to throw light on the several incidents that have arisen till the date of judgment pronounced in such matter. For such purpose, this Tribunal deems necessarily to refer to the factual background being responsible for the rise of the above typical situation.
(3.) AT the request of one partnership firm (being the defendant No. 1), consisting of a number of three persons (being respectively the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4), the applicant Bank was pleased to grant, in the year of 1984, to the said defendant firm and the other defendants the Bill Purchase Facilities to arise in relation to an account to be properly described as the "Bill Purchase Account" with the limit and which was extended from time-to-time and extended lastly upto a sum of Rs. 20 lacs.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.