Sarva Plastic Industries Pvt Ltd vs Narender Kumar Sharma Resolution ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 639 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal may recall an order dismissing or disposing of an appeal for non-appearance, and restore the appeal to its original number, where the counsel's absence arose from an honest mistake as to the listing date and not from deliberate default, and the explanation given is found sufficient to justify the exercise of discretion in the appellant's favour, notwithstanding some earlier non-representation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: M S Goel HUF & Anr. ...Appellant Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma, RP for Indirapuram ...Respondents Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd. Present: For Appellant : Appeared but Appearance not marked.
For Respondents : Appeared but Appearance not marked.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.08.2025 Restoration Application (AT) No. 20 of 2025- Heard Learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant and Learned Counsel for the Respondent perused the record.
The Instant Restoration Application has been moved by the appellant with a prayer to recall the order dated 09.05.2025 on the ground, amongst others, that during the mentioning on 04.03.2025, having regard to some misunderstanding on the part of Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the next date of Hearing was noted by him as 09.07.2025 while in fact the appeal was directed to be listed on 09.05.2025.
It is vehemently submitted that the appellant was diligently pursuing the appeal and the absence of the counsel for the Appellant on the fateful day was not deliberate and thus the order dated 09.05.2025 be recalled and the appeal be restored to its original no.
Learned Counsel for the sole Respondent opposes the prayer of restoration made by Learned Counsel for the Appellant relying on the Reply filed by him.
Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record we are of the view that though on some earlier occasions also the appellant was not represented but keeping in view that in paragraph 12 of the application it has been categorically mentioned by Learned Counsel for the appellant that it was on account of his mistake a wrong date has been noticed, we are of the view that sufficient explanation has been given for the non presence of Learned Counsel for the appellant on the fateful day, sufficient enough for us to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant/applicant.
Thus, the Restoration Application moved by the applicant/Appellant is allowed and the Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 628 of 2024 is restored to its original no. The registry is also directed to correct the cause title if it is required.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 639 of 2024 Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as sole Respondent are present. The pleadings in the appeal are complete. List this appeal for final hearing on 10.10.2025 with a stipulation that the appeal shall now not be adjourned at the behest of the appellant.
[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan]] Member (Judicial)
[Mr Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)
MT/MD
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free