Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 266 (MP)

Amit Bajpayee v. Subodh Sahu

2016-03-31

R.S.JHA

body2016
ORDER 1. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the 15th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in MJC No.80/2012, whereby the application under Order 9 rule 9 CPC filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not participate in the proceedings on account of the fact that he had taken up proceedings to get the agreement impounded for the purposes of paying the necessary stamp duty and in such circumstances his non-appearance before the Court below was bonafide which should have been condoned by the Court below. It is submitted that in such circumstances the dismissal of the application under Order 9 rule 9 CPC, by the impugned order dated 22.12.2012 deserves to be set aside. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, who has taken this Court through paras 7 to 9 of the impugned order, wherein the Court below has given detailed reasons for dismissal of the application and has recorded a finding that the appellant did not appear before the Court inspite of being given several opportunities to do so. 4. Having gone through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the Court below. However, at this stage the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case be restored subject to payment of cost. He further undertakes that he shall appear before the Court below on the date fixed by it and shall not seek any adjournment and shall also render full co-operation and assistance to the Court below for early disposal and decision of the suit, preferably within a period of six months. 5. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the appellant and with a view to ensure adjudication of the dispute on merits and for doing complete justice, the impugned order dated 22.12.2012 is set aside subject to the appellant paying cost of Rs.10,000/-, i.e., another Rs.2,500/- apart from the sum of Rs.7,500/- already deposited by him. 5. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the appellant and with a view to ensure adjudication of the dispute on merits and for doing complete justice, the impugned order dated 22.12.2012 is set aside subject to the appellant paying cost of Rs.10,000/-, i.e., another Rs.2,500/- apart from the sum of Rs.7,500/- already deposited by him. It is further directed that the parties shall appear before the Court below on 21.4.2016.The learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to ensure that his witnesses would be kept present in the court below on the next date given by the Court for the purposes of permitting the respondents to cross-examine the witnesses. 6. It is, however, made clear that in case the appellant does not deposit the amount as ordered by this Court or keep his witnesses present on the dates given by the Court below, the Court below would be at liberty to thereafter proceed against the appellant in accordance with law. 7. The learned counsel for the parties also undertake to render full assistance to the Court below for the purposes of early decision of the suit. 8. By recording the aforesaid undertaking of the parties, the appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid directions.