M/S SAHARA INDIA AND ORS. versus M.C. AGARWAL HUF

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 1037 · Decided: 21-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MIS SAHARA INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
M.C. AGARWAL HUF 
FEBRUARY 21, 2007 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDDALVEERBHANDARl,JJ.J 
B 
Judgement/Order: Reasoned order-Requirement of-Suit decreed by 
trial court in spite of non-appearance by defendant-Disposal of appeal by 
High Court by non-reasoned order and without considering the plea of C 
defendant as to why there was non-appearance-Thus, matter remitted back 
to trial court for acfjudication afresh-Cost imposed on the appellant. 
Suit for possession was filed. The case was adjourned for plaintifrs 
evidence. Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was again adjourned 
for plaintifrs evidence. There was no appearance from the defendant's side D 
and the matter was adjourned for final argumtnts. Suit was decreed. 
Defendants filed appeal which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. High Court has disposed of the First Appeal practically by E 
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, it is proper to remit the matter 
to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. [Para 8) [1039-B] 
1.2. It is also proper that the appellants should pay cost to the respondent F 
Even if the reason for non-appearance is accepted to be correct, the plaintiff 
was certainly prejudiced. Merely because the counsel for the defendants did 
not take proper care and caution that cannot be a ground to lose sight of the 
prejudice caused to the plaintiff-respondent. The same has to be meted out by 
costs which is fixed at Rs.20,000/-. [Para 9] [ 1039-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 876 of2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 29.9.2004 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in F.A.O. No. 681 of2003. 
1037 
G 
H 
1038 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
M.L. Venna, K.K. Khurana, Sanjay Pal, Vaibhav Dang and RajivNanda 
for the Appellants. 
Respondent-In-Person through P.K. Aggarwal 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. 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 
-r 
upholding the order passed by learned Additional District Judge in Suit No.54 
C of2001. 
3. Detailed reference to the factual aspects would be unnecessary except 
noting the vital aspects. 
4: Suit No.54/2001 was filed in the Court of District Judge, Delhi. The 
D 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 evid,ence 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 
E for the defendant and the matter was adjourned to be taken up oµ 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. 
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the course adopted 
F by the trial Court has no sanctity in law. The matter was listed on 13.5.2002 
r 
G 
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. 
6. 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. 
H 
7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that 
r 
-f 
SAHARAIND!Av. M.C.AGARWALHUF[PASAYAT,J.] 
1039 
the appellants have not come with clean hands, and they have given a wrong A 
and distorted picture. 
8. 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 i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.