S.B. Mathur Vs. R.S. Ajit Singh and Co. - Court Judgment

A.P. Chowdhri, President:

1. Brief facts leading to this miscellaneous application are that after hearing Counsel for the parties orders were reserved in Appeal No. A-l64/84. After the retirement of the lady Member of appeal was set-down for re-hearing and notice was directed to be issued. Only Counsel for the appellant appeared on 6.2.1997. None appeared for the respondents. Proceeding on the supposition that notice regarding rehearing had been served, on Counsel for the respondent, the case was adjourned for final arguments to 9.4.1997. Mr. Santosh Paul, Advocate for the appellant agreed to inform the Counsel for the respondents about the next date of hearing. None appeared for the respondents on three subsequent dates to which the hearing was adjourned. Ultimately, Counsel for the appellant was heard on 13.10.1997 and the appeal disposed of by our order of the same date. On receiving certified copy of the order passed in appeal the present application has been moved by Premier Automobiles, respondent No. 2 in the appeal, and the main grievance is that no notice regarding rehearing of the appeal was served upon the applicant (respondent No. 2) and the order in the appeal had been passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to the applicant. It has, therefore, been prayed that the order be set aside and the matter decided afresh according to tew. Reply has been filed by the non-applicant (appellant). We have heard Mr. Iqbal Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate for the applicant (respondent No. 2) and Mr. Rajan Kumar, Advocate for nonapplicant (appellant) and have gone through the records.

2. The main stand in the reply is two-fold. One, that the written arguments had been submitted by respondent No. 2 in the appeal and the same had been duly taken into consideration before passing the final order and secondly, it was the duty of the applicant to find out about the next date of hearing as the order dated 6.2.1997 proceeded on the footing that notice of rehearing of the appeal had been duly served on the respondents. The contention of Mr. Siddiqui, on the other hand, is that no notice regarding rehearing of the appeal was served on the applicant with the result that the said respondent was prevented from arguing the matter which had resulted in failure of justice.

3. A perusal of the record shows that notice regarding rehearing of the appeal was not served on respondent No. 2, applicant herein, and the order dated 6.2.1997 that notice had been served was based on a mistaken impression regarding the non-service of the notice. Admittedly, the Counsel for the appellant, who undertook to inform Counsel for the respondents failed to inform Counsel for the respondents in the appeal. When the appeal came up for final hearing on 13.10.1997, none appeared for the respondents and the appeal was, thus, disposed of without affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondents. The present application has, however, been made only on behalf of respondent No. 2. Failure to appear was, thus, occasion by non-service of notice regarding rehearing of the appeal. The paramount consideration of justice compels us to recall the order passed in the appeal so that the parties can be afforded an opportunity of being heard and the appeal disposed of according to law. Indian Bank v. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2592, is a clear authority for the proposition that even quasi-judicial Authorities like the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act has inherent powers to recall the order passed by it where it is misled by a party or it commits a mistake which prejudices a party vide para 23 of the report at page 2592. For these reasons, the application is allowed and the order aforesaid set-aside. The appeal shall now come up for final hearing afresh on 7.12.1998. Copy of the order be given to the parties.

Application allowed.