MIS Sahara India and Ors. v. M.C. Agarwal HUF

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dalveer Bhandari
Judgment Date: 2007-02-21
Court Decision / Holding: The Court remits the matter to the trial court for fresh adjudication with directions to dispose within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal is disposed of. The appellants are directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as costs to the respondents within ten days, with a receipt to be filed before the trial court to ensure timely compliance.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MIS Sahara India and Ors.

Respondents

M.C. Agarwal HUF

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A M.L. Venna
• K.K. Khurana
• Sanjay Pal
• Vaibhav Dang
• Rajiv Nanda

Counsels for Respondents

• P.K. Aggarwal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court appeal arises from a Delhi High Court decision in First Appeal No. 681/2003 challenging an order of the District Judge, Delhi, in Suit No. 54/2001. The suit, filed for possession, damages, mesne profit and rent, was decreed by the trial court after the plaintiff presented evidence and the defendant remained absent on several adjourned dates. The defendants filed an appeal which the High Court disposed of in a manner described as non‑reasoned and cryptic, without addressing the defendants’ plea regarding the reason for non‑appearance or considering potential irregularities in the trial process. The Supreme Court noted that despite the trial court’s unusual approach, the High Court’s disposal effectively disposed of the appeal without a reasoned evaluation of the issues and evidence. It held that the matter should be remitted to the trial court for fresh adjudication and directed that the trial court decide within three months. The Court also imposed a fixed cost of Rs. 20,000 on the appellants, to be paid within ten days, with the receipt to be filed to facilitate timely compliance. The appeal is thus disposed of by remand for a proper, reasoned consideration of the merits on remand.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Learned counsel for 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 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. Instead, the matter was taken up on 29.5.2002 and a long judgment was delivered. The reason for non‑appearance relied upon by the defendants was a wrong noting of the date by counsel. The High Court did not discuss pleas or submissions and dismissed the appeal in a cryptic manner. The appellants contend that such non‑reasoned disposal undermines due process. They urge remand so that the trial Court can examine the merits with full opportunity for evidence and submissions and with proper consideration of any admissible defects in service. They therefore seek fresh adjudication on the substantive issues.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent submits that the appellants have not approached with clean hands and have presented a distorted picture of events. The trial Court’s irregular conduct did not necessarily prejudice the plaintiff beyond remedy; the suit was decreed and the appeal could be determined on the record. Non‑appearance cannot vitiate the court’s order per se, and a cryptic High Court dismissal may still be justified if the record discloses a proper basis for decreeing the suit. The respondent argues that remand is permissible where there is error in appellate process and a need to safeguard fair trial standards, and that the retrial should still allow consideration of the already‑recorded evidence and merits.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## _MIS_ SAHARA INDIA AND ORS. _v._ ## M.C. AGARWAL HUF FEBRUARY 21, 2007 ## [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDDALVEERBHANDARl,JJ.J _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) G ## 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. H 1037 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R. 1038 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 upholding the order passed by learned Additional District Judge in Suit No.54 C of2001. _-r_ 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 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. _r_ G 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 SAHARAIND!Av. M.C.AGARWALHUF[PASAYAT,J.] 1039 _r_ -f the appellants have not come with clean hands, and they have given a wrong 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 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. 9. 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 "fhat 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 I 0 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. I 0. Parties are permitted to place copy of our order before the trial Court so that necessary directions can be issued. E 11. The appeal is disposed of. N.J. Appeal disposed of .