IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
ICICI Bank Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Winner Construction Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CM(M) 754 of 2018 and CM APP No. 26912 of 2018
Decided On : 21-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order for non-appearance. (Para 1) |
| 2. examination of reasons for non-appearance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. application under order ix rule 7 should be construed liberally. (Para 5) |
| 4. court orders a specific timeline for trial. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 26.05.2018 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was dismissed on the ground of insufficient reasons to explain non-appearance and delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC.
2. Learned Trial Court has examined the issue in detail and has come to a firm conclusion that the Petitioner has not been able to explain the reasons for delay much less the sufficient cause for such non-appearance.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that there is no reason much less a justifiable reason for interfering with the impugned order in as much as there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order.
4. Mr. Mahindro, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the impugned order is sustainable in law and may not be interfered with.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties and is of the firm opinion that the application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC need to be construed a little more liberally so as to ensure that the lis between the parties is decided on merits rather than on technicalities. The Court also is of the opinion that catena of judgments right from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors., 1987 SCR (2) 387, have laid down that such applications ought to be construed liberally and the parties must be permitted to contest their cases on merits.
6. In that view of the matter, impugned order dated 26.05.2018 is quashed and set aside subject to the Petitioner paying to the Respondent costs of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks from today. Petitioner would be deemed to have joined the proceedings on and from 11.03.2014 when the Court had proceeded it exparte. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court may proceed in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid, the petition and the application filed herewith are disposed of.
8. In view of the fact that the original suit is pending since 23.01.2013, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the learned Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, not later than nine months from the date of receipt of the order.
9. Though it is informed that suit is listed for consideration before the learned Trial Court on 11.01.2023, written statement to be filed on behalf of the Petitioner may be submitted to the Court with an advance copy to the counsel for the Respondent on or before 30.01.2023 and the same is directed to be taken on record.
Court emphasized liberal construction of applications under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to favor merits over procedural technicalities, ensuring parties can contest their cases substantively.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC and Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and the applicability of each provision in different s....
The right of the petitioner to contest the matter in execution proceedings and the imposition of appropriate cost to allow participation, as provided under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC.
The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of applications under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC to prevent prejudicial effects on the petitioner.
The court has the discretion to allow exemption from filing certified copies of annexures, subject to all just exceptions, and can direct the disposal of urgent matters in accordance with law.
The need for the Trial Court to decide the application of the Petitioner on its own merits and the imposition of legal costs as a condition for the liberty granted.
A defendant retains the right to participate in proceedings even after the rejection of an application under Order IX, Rule 7, provided they appear timely and engage with the trial process.
Judicial discretion under procedural rules should prioritize substantive justice over mere technicalities, enabling courts to decide applications on their merits.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.