The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the roster notified by the Chief Justice and the consequences of deviating from it, as well as the power of the Chief Justice in assigning cases and the duty of the judges to follow the assigned roster.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The respondent : Formosa Plastics Corporation, filed EP No.38/1998 for execution of a decree of the Chancery Division of the U.K. High Court. The decree was against appellant No.1, who filed interim applications praying a summary rejection of the execution petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable. These applications were being heard by Mr. Justice V.K. Shali because of the then Roster notified by the Chief Justice of this Court. The applications were part-heard on November 15, 2010. The next date was December 16, 2010. The learned Judge was on leave. The Court Master adjourned the matter to March 31, 2011. A day prior, the Roster was changed, but with a specific direction by the Chief Justice that part-heard matters would continue to be listed before the previous Bench before which the matter was part-heard. Overlooking said direction, the Registry listed the matter before Mr. Justice J.R. Midha on March 31, 2011 who dismissed the execution petition noting no representation from the side of the respondent. This led the respondent to file two applications, one seeking restoration of the execution petition and the other seeking delay to be condoned in filing the former application. Listed before Mr. Justice A.K. Pathak, the learned Single Judge held that in view of Order 21 Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure the delay in seeking restoration could not be condoned. The result was EA No.438/2011 and EA No. 439/2011 being dismissed on August 02, 2011. Review of said order sought vide RA No. 506/2011 was declined vide order dated September 20, 2011.

2. Formosa Plastics Corporation filed two execution appeals, registered as EFA(OS) No. 41/2011 and EFA(OS) No.42/2011. The latter impugning the order dated March 31, 2011 and the former impugning the orders dated August 02, 2011 and September 20, 2011.

3. The two first appeals were disposed of vide order dated May 18, 2011. The terminal paragraph of which decision reads as under:-

“26. EFA 41/2011 has to succeed. EFA 42/2011 is to succeed to the extent indicated in the preceding paragraph and for decision as to whether sufficient cause was shown by the appellant to explain the delay in the filing of EA No.438/2011, the said application and the application for condoning the delay shall be listed before Midha, J. on 25.05.2016 since he made the order dated 31.03.2011 The single Judge is requested to hear and dispose of the matter expeditiously. EFA 41/2011 is allowed; EFA 42/2011 is allowed to the above extend.”

4. After noting the factual backdrop, the Division Bench first proceeded to decide the maintainability of the appeals. After noting various judgments cited as also the arguments advanced, the Division Bench held that the appeals were maintainable.

5. The Division Bench then proceeded to focus on the second question : Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the application seeking re-call of the order dismissing the execution petition. The Division Bench noted that Mr. Justice V.K. Shali had heard arguments in part on the applications filed by the appellant No.1 seeking summary rejection of the execution petition on the ground that it was not maintainable and that in spite of the applications being part-heard the matter was listed before Mr. Justice J.R. Midha who dismissed the execution petition for non-appearance and hence non-prosecution on March 31, 2011. The Division Bench held that on March 31, 2011 only the applications filed by the appellants were posted for hearing and thus the order dated March 31, 2011 could not have been treated as one of dismissal of the execution petition. As per the Division Bench, the order was of the kind which a Division Bench of this Court had dealt with in the decision reported as (176) 2011 DLT 280 Duetshe Raneo GmbH vs. Mohan Murthi, wherein a distinction between listing of an execution petition and listing of interim applications was highlighted. The Division Bench noted the