http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  876 of 2007

PETITIONER: M/s Sahara India and Ors

RESPONDENT: M.C. Aggarwal Huf

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/02/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.  

       Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the  First Appeal No. 681/2003 and upholding the order passed by  learned Additional District Judge in Suit No.54 of 2001.  

       Detailed reference to the factual  aspects would be  unnecessary except noting the vital aspects.  

       Suit No.54/2001 was filed in the Court of District Judge,  Delhi. The same was for possession, recovery of  damages and  mesne profit and rent  @ Rs.70,664/- p.m. i.e. On 26.2.2002  the learned Additional District Judge framed issues and the  case was adjourned to 13.5.2002 for the evidence of the  plaintiff. On 13.5.2002 the Presiding Officer was on leave and  the case was adjourned to 29.5.2002 for the plaintiff’s  evidence. On 29.5.2002 none appeared for the defendant and  the matter was adjourned to be taken up on 31.5.2002 for  final arguments and the matter was directed to be placed for  orders after lunch.  Finally, the suit was decreed. The appeal  filed by the defendants was dismissed.  

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the  course adopted by the trial Court has no sanctity in law. The  matter was listed on 13.5.2002 for plaintiff’s evidence and was  subsequently adjourned to 29.5.2002. Even if the defendants  were not present the order could have been at the most to set  the defendants ex parte and another date should have been  fixed. Interestingly, the matter was taken up that very day and  a long judgment  running into several pages was delivered.  

        It was submitted that the reason for non-appearance was  indicated to be wrong noting of the date by learned counsel  appearing for the defendants. The High Court did not discuss  any of the pleas and the submissions and by a cryptic order  dismissed the appeal.  

        Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

submitted that the appellants have not come with clean  hands, and they have given a wrong and distorted picture.  

We find that the High Court has disposed of the First  Appeal practically by a non-reasoned order. It did not even  consider the plea of the defendants as to why there was non- appearance.  Be that as it may, the course adopted by the trial  Court appears  to be unusual. Therefore, we deem it proper to  remit the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication.   Since the matter is pending the trial Court shall dispose of the  matter within three months from the date of receipt of our  order.  

It is also proper that the appellants should pay cost to  the respondent. Even if the reason for non-appearance is  accepted to be correct, the plaintiff was certainly prejudiced.  Merely because the learned counsel appearing for the  defendants did not take proper care and caution that cannot  be a ground to loose sight of the prejudice caused to the  plaintiff-respondent. The same has to be meted out by costs  which we fix at Rs.20,000/-.  The amount shall be paid within  10 days from today. A receipt shall be filed before the trial  Court immediately thereafter so that our directions for  disposal within three months can be duly complied with.  

Parties are permitted to place copy of our order before the  trial Court so that necessary directions can be issued.                   The appeal is disposed of.