CANARA BANK Vs. SHEELA RANI
LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-297
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 28,2007

CANARA BANK Appellant
VERSUS
OM PRAKASH,SHEELA RANI,MANJU,SURENDER KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.M.MALIK, J. - (1.) This is an application for condonation of delay of one month in filing the instant petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and hereby disposed of. CM(M) No.1328/2007 Counsel for the petitioner heard. He points out that the respondent was yet to appear before the trial court as he was not yet served in this case.
(2.) The case filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 14.02.2006. Petitioner filed an application for restoration of the suit on 16.03.2006. Counsel for the petitioner filed an affidavit. Its relevant portion is reproduced as follows :- "It is submitted that earlier process fee could not be filed within time as the file of the counsel for the plaintiff was misplaced while shifting his office from Malviya Nagar to Okhla towards the first week of Jan, 2006. The file could not be traced on 11.02.2006. The counsel for the plaintiff was to make a request on this count on 14.02.2006. But due to unfortunate and untimely death of his uncle on the preceding day of the said date i.e. on 13.02.2006, the counsel for the plaintiff who immediately rushed to Deoria to take part in the last rites and burial of his uncle, which took place on 14.02.2006. The counsel for the plaintiff could not appear and makes a request on that count as well."
(3.) The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff should have informed the plaintiff to appear since he was going to Deoria. Again, repeatedly, process fee and RC were not filed. It was also observed that no sufficient ground was shown for restoration of the suit.;


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