2017 (5) TMI 1662 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed, Upholding Trial Court's Decision on Damages, Emphasizes Litigants' Duty

Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015, upholding the trial court's decision awarding Rs. 14,82,213/- with ... Condonation of delay in filing/re-filing appeal - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Held that:- Though, it has been alleged that the counsel despite several requests did not supply them the copies of the documents, still the appellant, which is a private limited company having highly educated businessmen running it, should have approached the court and find out the factual position and obtained the certified copies. The appellant company has always been either negligent in its approach or knowingly did not disclose the fact of their knowledge of decretal of the suit to avoid the decree or delay the payment of decretal amount. Even the complaint dated 05.11.2016 sent to the Chairman, Bar Council of India, does not reflects that their counsel stopped appearing w.e.f 10.11.2014 or they were falsely informed about the dismissal of the suit whereas in fact it was decreed. They have also not mentioned in the complaint that they were falsely informed by the counsel and did not supply them copies. In the complaint, it is reflected that they have started contacting the lawyer when the representative of the court visited them on 20.09.2016. Such negligent litigants are bound to suffer. It appears that either the appellant company is concealing true facts of its knowledge of dismissal of the suit or they have been careless and negligent in pursuing their case in the court of law. Be that as it may, the appellant has failed to make out any justification for condonation of delay. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial court - the appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.3. Merits of the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Re-filing the Appeal:Application for condonation of 101 days' delay in re-filing the appeal:The court allowed the application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, stating, 'For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.' This application was disposed of without further detailed discussion.2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:Application for condonation of 400 days' delay in filing the appeal:The appellant claimed that their previous counsel stopped attending proceedings from 10.11.2014 and misled them about the status of the case. They argued that the counsel's negligence should not cause them to suffer. The court, however, noted inconsistencies and lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claims. The court emphasized the duty of litigants to be vigilant about their cases, stating, 'The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance.'The court referenced previous judgments, including the Division Bench decision in Man Singh (deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. Gaon Sabha Jindpur and others, 2012 (4) ILR (Del) 50, and the Apex Court decision in Hameed Joharan Vs. Abdul Salam, (2001) 7 SCC 573, to highlight that negligence on the part of the litigant prevents courts from condoning delays. The court concluded that the appellant failed to justify the delay, stating, 'the appellant has failed to make out any justification for condonation of delay.'3. Merits of the Appeal Against the Judgment and Decree Dated 31.08.2015:Appeal against the judgment and decree awarding Rs. 14,82,213/- with interest:The appellant challenged the judgment on the grounds that the suit was based on unauthorized invoices and that the entire amount had been settled. The court noted that the appellant admitted to having made a payment of Rs. 31,00,000/- and acknowledged the balance amount of Rs. 14,82,213/- in their letter dated 31.03.2010. The court found no evidence supporting the appellant's claim of settlement beyond the Rs. 31,00,000/- paid.The court observed that the appellant did not dispute the services or invoices raised by the respondent. The court stated, 'The appellant has not filed even a single document to show the balance payment of Rs. 14,82,213/-.' The trial court's judgment was deemed appropriate, with the court asserting, 'I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial court.'The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for Rs. 14,82,213/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the legal notice was upheld. The court noted that the decree benefitted the appellant as it did not include additional interest from the filing date of the suit. The application for stay of the judgment and decree was also dismissed.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment and decree. The applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal were scrutinized, with the court emphasizing the litigant's duty to be vigilant and diligent in pursuing their case. The appellant's failure to provide sufficient justification for the delay and lack of evidence supporting their claims led to the dismissal of the appeal.