Find a Lawyer

High Court Appeal No. 99 of 1982, decided on 15th April, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Intra‑Court appeal‑‑Suit originally instituted before High Court remaining all along pending in that Court‑‑As per notice to defendant Vakalatnama of counsel had been filed though rib written, statement was filed‑‑There being no question of_ fresh notice being issued to defendant/ appellant, ex parte judgment and decree passed by High Court on basis of unrebutted evidence on record, held; was justified‑‑Nothing having been shown which could detract from reasonableness of judgment and decree passed by High Court, intra‑Court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Sher Ali for Appellant.

Sabihuddin for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th April, 1986.

This appeal was directed against the judgment and decree passed by Hon'ble Single Judge on 19‑5‑1982 in Suit No. 1244/ 80.

2. The suit had been filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 58,245 for the refund of storage charges which had been allegedly wrongly recovered from K.P.T. by them.

3. The notice of the suit had been given to the K.P.T: and the Vakalatnama of counsel had been filed. However, no written statement was filed on their behalf. The matter was, therefore, fixed for final disposal and after recording the statement of the plaintiff's witnesses the Single Judge decreed the suit for Rs. 24,839.

4. The appellant filed the appeal and it was admitted on 6‑12‑1982 with the following order:‑

"Mr. Sher Ali, Advocate for the appellant present states that the suit was pending in the High Court and then it was transferred to the District Court and from there it was transferred back to the High. Court where it has been decided without notice to the appellant and decreed ex parte. Contention raised requires consideration. Admit. Notice."

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sher Ali has fairly submitted that it was under some misapprehension that he had stated before the admitting Bench that the‑ suit had been transferred to the District Court and then transferred back to the High Court without any notice to the appellant. He has now stated before us that on further enquiry he has learnt that, that was not the correct position and that the Suit No. 1244 of 1980 'which has been decreed had all along remained pending in the High Court and. consequently, there was no question of any fresh notice being issued to the appellant."

This being the position, there is no illegality in the Judgment and decree which has been passed against the appellant by the Single Judge. The judgment of the Single Judge is based upon evidence which has been produced by the respondent /plaintiff before the Hon'ble Single A,J Judge and he has not decreed the suit for the entire amount of Rs. 58,250 which was claimed by, the respondent but has reduced their claim to Rs. 24,839 on the basis of the evidence produced before him . There was no evidence produced in rebuttal of that evidence and, therefore, there was ample justification for the judgment and decree passed against the appellant.

6. Nothing has been shown to us which could detract from the reasonableness of that judgment and decree and consequently, this appeal is dismissed.

7. Mr. Sabihuddin Ahmed has appeared for the respondent and does not claim costs.

H.B.T. Intra‑Court appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.