CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

114

Date of decision: 28.10.2025

1.CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

Steel Authority of India and others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Rajeev Gupta and another ...Respondent(s)

AND

2.RSA-1146-2021 (O&M)

Steel Authority of India and others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Rajeev Gupta and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners

in CR-7485-2017 and for the appellants in

RSA-1146-2021.

Mr. Pavan Malik, Advocate for the respondents

in CR-7485-2017 and for the respondents

in RSA-1146-2021.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/defendants

against the order dated 13.07.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by ld.

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh; whereby application filed

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 2

by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC

for setting aside exparte judgment and decree dated 25.01.2011 and ex

parte order dated 09.03.2010, has been dismissed. Challenge in the

present petition is also laid to the order dated 03.05.2017 (Annexure P-

7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib;

whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated

13.07.2016, has been dismissed.

RSA-1146-2021 (O&M)

Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the

defendants against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the

learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents

for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make delivery of a

remainder of order dated 19.03.1998, the payment of which had already

been received by the defendants being the goods short supplied by the

defendants on account of defect in weigh-bridge, has been decreed by

both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint, are that the

plaintiffs had been purchasing the iron and steel material from the

appellants/defendants. On 19.03.1998, plaintiffs placed an order for

supply of 1500 MT slab end cuttings. Order was accepted by the

defendants; and payments made by the plaintiffs by way of demand

drafts were also accepted and encashed. On 6.4.1998, plaintiff took

delivery of the order supplied by way of four wagons and detected

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 3

shortage of 38.545 M/T in these four wagons. Plaintiff immediately

informed the defendant regarding the said shortage on the same date. It

was informed by the defendants that officers are being deputed to visit

the spot for verification of weight at the spot. Plaintiff was informed by

the Deputy CMM Delhi/defendant no.5 that the Weigh bridge where

goods were weighed was defective. Team of officials visited on 8.4.1998

and they were apprised of the shortage detected in four wagons.

Plaintiff made repeated requests to the team of the defendant to weigh

the material. However, the delivered material was not weighed.

Accordingly, plaintiff had no option but to take delivery because entire

value of goods already stood paid. Thereafter, despite repeated

intimation, defendant slept over the matter and did not even bother to

give reply. Plaintiff sent legal notice through counsel on 20.5.1998.

However, no reply was received from the defendant. Accordingly,

plaintiff again sent a Notice on 15.10.1999 under registered cover. But

defendant never replied. Hence, present suit was filed on 16.3.2000.

3. The defendant/appellants put in appearance and filed written

statement. However subsequently, the defendants were proceeded

against ex-parte by order dated 9.3.2010; as the learned counsel

representing the defendant pleaded ‘no instructions.’

4. Consequentially, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly-decreed

vide ex parte judgment dated 25.01.2011 for the relief of recovery of

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 4

Rs.24,09,153/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from 07.04.1998 till actual

realization along with cost of the suit.

5. The Civil Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the

ld. Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree

dated 27.7.2020. Hence, present second appeal by the defendant.

Main cases:

Both, the above said Revision Petition and Regular Second

Appeal, are being disposed of by this common order as both

proceedings emanate from the same civil suit and are between the same

parties and issues involved in both cases are identical. For the sake of

brevity, facts are being taken from, and parties are being referred to as

per their status in CR-7485-2017.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioners that learned Courts below were in error in dismissing the

application of the petitioners as they failed to appreciate that in the civil

suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, the petitioners had duly put in

appearance and had even filed written statement. It is submitted that

however during the pendency of the suit, learned counsel for the

petitioners pleaded no instructions. As such vide order dated 09.03.2010

(Annexure P-1), learned Trial Court directed the petitioners to be

proceeded against ex parte. Consequentially, suit of the

respondents/plaintiffs was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree

dated 25.01.2011 (Annexure P-2). It is submitted that it is only during the

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 5

pendency of the execution proceedings that the petitioners discovered

about the factum of ex parte judgment and decree dated 25.01.2011;

and immediately moved application dated 18.09.2013 (Annexure P-3)

under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex

parte judgment and decree.

3. Learned counsel contends that it is relevant to point out that

while passing the impugned orders, the learned courts below have not

appreciated the settled principles of law in which it has been held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of judgments that once the counsel

for the parties have no instructions then the court has no option but to

issue notice to the client so that the client should not suffer because of

non-appearance of the counsel. However, in the present case, the said

settled principles of law has been ignored by the learned courts below

while passing the impugned orders, Annexure P-5 and P-7, respectively.

4. It is submitted that in these circumstances, it was incorrect

for learned Courts below to infer that the present application had been

filed by the petitioners only to delay the matter. Thus, impugned orders

passed by learned Courts below are based on conjectures and surmises.

It is argued that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that

petitioners do not stand to gain anything by not putting appearance

before the learned Courts below.

5. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants

further valiantly argues that a perusal of the impugned orders would

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 6

show that learned Trial Court was merely influenced by the fact that

since the petitioners/defendants had not appeared therefore, the suit of

the plaintiff be decreed. It is submitted that the impugned Judgments

and decrees of the learned Courts below are, therefore, unsustainable as

even no issue-wise findings have been given. It is submitted that even

the Civil Appeal preferred by the petitioners before the first Appellate

Court has been dismissed only on grounds of delay.

6. He accordingly prays for setting aside the impugned orders

dated 13.07.2016 (Annexure P-5); 03.05.2017 (Annexure P-7) and allow

application dated 18.09.2013 (Annexure P-3) in the Revision Petition;

and for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees dated

25.01.2011 and 27.07.2020 respectively in the Second Appeal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs

vehemently opposes submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and

submits that the entire blame for non-appearance on behalf of the

defendants/petitioners cannot be placed upon the counsel. It is also for

the petitioners to be a vigilant litigant and pursue litigation diligently.

8. It is further submitted that the impugned judgments and

decrees suffer from no error whatsoever. It is submitted that although

the decree passed by ld. Trial Court is exparte however, the same is

passed on the basis of report of the fact finding Committee which

comprises of Chairman of defendant-company itself; whereupon it was

found that there was short supply of material supplied by defendant to

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 7

the plaintiff. Accordingly, defendant was directed to pay the decretal

amount to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondents

accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Civil Revision and also the

Second Appeal.

9. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have

heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail.

10. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: –

16.03.2000: The plaintiffs/respondents filed a civil suit dated 16.3.2000

(Annexure P-2) for Mandatory Injunction, seeking a direction to the

defendants to deliver 267.440 m/t Slab End Cuttings, being the balance

of an order dated 19.03.1998. In the alternative, the plaintiff sought

recovery of the resultant loss incurred.

17.07.2001: The defendants had duly put in appearance in the said suit

through counsel and filed detailed written statement dated 17.07.2001

before the learned trial court.

09.03.2010: On 9.3.2010, the defendants were proceeded against ex-

parte as their counsel pleaded "no instruction" qua them.

25.01.2011: The suit was partly decreed vide an ex-parte judgment

dated 25.1.2011, granting relief of recovery of Rs. 24,09,153/- along-with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 07.04.1998 till actual realization

along-with cost of the suit.

18.09.2013: The defendants filed application under order IX rule 13 of

CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order (Annexure P-3).

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 8

10.11.2014: The plaintiffs filed a reply to the application of the

defendants for setting aside ex-parte order (Annexure P-4).

13.07.2016: The learned Trial Court dismissed the above-mentioned

application under order 9 rule 13 CPC (Annexure P-5).

16.08.2016: Aggrieved by the above, the defendants preferred an appeal

before the Learned First Appellate Court, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-

6).

03.05.2017: The Learned First Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal

(Annexure P-7).

21.09.2017: The defendants then filed the present civil revision before

this Court.

01.11.2017: The defendants also filed a First Appeal against the ex-parte

judgment dated 25.01.2011, along with an application under Section 5

of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 2472 days.

19.01.2018: In the meanwhile, proceedings were going on before the

learned Executing Court. Thus, in the Civil Revision Petition this Court,

vide its order dated 19.01.2018, directed the petitioner to deposit the

decretal amount along with interest before the learned Executing Court

within a period of three weeks, and adjourned the matter to 12.02.2018.

22.02.2018: Vide order dated 22.2.2018, this court issued Notice to the

respondent, and the execution was stayed, as the petitioner had

complied with the order dated 19.01.2018 by depositing the decretal

amount.

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 9

27.07.2020: In the meantime, the learned First Appellate Court

dismissed the Civil appeal of the defendant on ground of delay of 2472

days.

30.1.2021: The defendant preferred the present Regular Second Appeal

before this Court.

11. It is my considered view that the above said facts are self

speaking and amply reflect the utterly callous, casual and cavalier

attitude adopted by the petitioner in pursuing the present litigations. It

has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned trial

court ought to have issued notice to the petitioners before proceeding

ex parte against them. However, duty also lies upon the petitioner to be

vigilant towards its rights to pursue litigation diligently. The petitioner

cannot totally sleep upon the matter for decades together, after

entrusting the same to counsel. In this situation, it would be apposite to

refer to recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Moddus Media Pvt.

Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi): Law Finder Doc Id #

887148 holding that:

“11. 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 litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the

Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the

Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the

decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant

cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 10

passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by

such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate

and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the

nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the

appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted

and ought not to have been accepted.”

12. As regards the Regular Second Appeal, the learned Courts

below have given cogent findings in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

The relevant findings of learned Trial Court as contained in judgment

dated 25.01.2011 are reproduced as under: -

“7.Thereafter plaintiff examined the three witnesses.

Those witnesses were made available for cross examination

but were not cross examined as Sh GD Bector counsel for the

defendant pleaded no instructions, Defendants were

proceeded exparte for this reason on 9.3.2010.

XXX XXX XXX

9. In its evidence PW1 Anil Kumar deposed that he is

attorney of plaintiff Rajiv Gupta. Power of attorney dated

8.7.03 is Ex. P-1. Не personally is well conversant with the

case. He deposed on the lines of pleadings and same is not

repeated for sake of brevity. He proved on record sale order

photocopy dated 19.3.1998 vide which order was placed as

Ex. P-2. Defendants dispatched the material on 31.3.1998.

Photocopy of the letter dated 31.3.1998 addressed to CMM

Bokaro is Ex. P-3 and photocopy of plaint instruction memo

dated 1.5.1998 is Ex. P-4. Photocopy of fax dated 6.4.1998

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 11

addressed to Suresh Parsad CMM Commercial is Ex. P-5.

Photocopy of letter dated 6.4.1998 addressed to CMM

Commercial is Ex. P-6. Photocopy of letter dated 7.4.1998

addressed to MD & EX (MM) is Ex. P-7. Photocopy of letter

dated 9.4.1998 addressed to ED (MM) is Ex. P-8. Photocopy of

letter dated 15.4.1998 addressed to MD BSL delivered

personally is Ex. P-9. Photocopy of fax message dated

16.4.1998 addressed to MD BSL delivered personally is Ex. P-

10. Photocopy of fax message dated 24.4.1998 addressed to

MD BSL is Ex. P-11. Photocopy of fax message dated 6.5.1998

addressed to ED (MM) is Ex. P-12. Photocopy of letter dated

11.5.1998 addressed to Chairman SAIL with copy to MD BSL is

Ex. P-13. Photocopy fax message dated 15.7.1998 addressed

to MD with copy to ED (MM) and CMM (Commercial) is Ex. P-

14. Photocopy of fax message dated 20.11.1998 addressed to

MD and EX (MM) is Ex. P-15. Photocopy of letter dated

22.1.1998 addressed to MD is Ex. P-16. Photocopy of of letter

dated 29.5.1999 addressed to MD submitted on his visit to

Mandi Gobindgarh is Ex. P-17. Photocopy of letter dated

17.6.1999 addressed to Sh. MP Goyal Deputy CMM

(Commercial) New Delhi is Ex P-18. Photocopy of letter dated

6.9.99 addressed to MD Bokaro Steel Plant is Ex. P-19.

Carbon copies and fax messages in original were brought in

the court. He further deposed that when representatives of

the defendants did not agree to make physical weighment

the plaintiff approached certain respectables to have

weighment in their presence of remaining 22 wagons to

ascertain the factum of weighment. Those respectables

include sh. Narinder Sharma, Ram Kumar, Ved Diwan, Vishal

Goyal and weighment of 22 wagons was made on 8.4.1998 in

presence of above said person and weighment was found

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 12

1050.625 M.T. confirming a shortage of 228.595 MT. At that

time a weighment statement was prepared and got signed by

the deponent and all the above said persons present which is

Ex.P21. They also signed the weighment statement in

presence of deponent. A hand written weighment statement

was prepared when weighment was in progress and same is

Ex. P-22. Most importantly a fact finding committee

comprising of Sh JP Bhatele DGM ETB (Chairman) Sh. MM

Mehewshwari CMM (PUR MIS) Member and Sh. N. Roy

Chowdhury CFM (S & E Member) was formed who submitted

their report to higher officers and fact finding committee has

supported case of plaintiff and a photocopy of report is Ex. P-

20. The court had already allowed proving the document

through secondary evidence. Interrogatories were also served

upon defendants but defendants submitted the wrong reply

and they are liable to penal action. Letters Ex. P-5 to P-19

clearly shows that defendants just slept over the matter.

Plaintiff maintains regular books of accounts and a cash

balance is struck in the evening. All the transactions are duly

entered in the accounts books. True copies of the same are

Ex. P-23 and P-24. Original accounts books were brought at

the time of leading evidence. Plaintiff is also member of

Gobindgarh Chamber of Commerce. The chamber also took

the matter wit the defendants and correspondence to this

effect is Ex. P-25 to P-30. Officials received the letters at Delhi

and had responded vide letter dated 27.8.1998 and copy of

same is Ex. P-31. Plaintiff now claims Rs. 24,09,153/ and Rs.

38,66,500/- as interest from 1.4.1998 to 28.2.2007 and

plaintiff further claims interest till realisation of the amount.

10. PW2 Narinder Sharma deposed that he is conversant

with the controversy. On 8.4.1998 he alongwith Anil Gupta,

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 13

Ram Kumar, Ved Diwan, Vishal Goyal witnessed the physical

weighment of goods as officers of the defendants had

weighed the material. Weighment statement is Ex. P-21

which bears his signatures.” Emphasis supplied

10. From the above, it is clear that the learned trial court has

considered the matter in sufficient detail and has satisfied itself in

respect of the claim of the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has

been unable to point out any error in the above said findings of fact of

the ld. trial court.

11. Further, the Civil appeal has been filed before the learned

first Appellate Court with a delay of 2472 days. In this regard, the

findings of the learned First Appellate Court as recorded in para 13 of

the judgment dated 27.7.2020 are relevant, which reads as follows: –

“13. So far as issue No.2 is concerned there is no material

evidence brought on behalf of the applicants that the delay in

filling the appeal is not only intentional or deliberate. Rather

the applicants have been found negligent and irresponsible in

defending the suit as well as in filing the appeal also. The

applicants cannot should have been vigilant in pursuing their

litigation. Accordingly issue no. 2 is hereby decided in favour

of respondents and against the applicants.”

12. In this situation, reference may be made to recent judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as

Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 14

INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666,

wherein it is held that: –

“D. Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - State and Public

Authorities - Earlier jurisprudence granted some latitude for

bureaucratic delays; however, post-2012 decisions

(Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.) reject

mechanical condonation of delay due to bureaucratic

inefficiency - The State is not entitled to any special

treatment and must act with reasonable diligence - Repeated

laxity cannot be condoned, and officers responsible for delay

may be held accountable.

E. Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - Public Interest -

Condonation of delay merely to protect public interest is not

a valid ground if delay is due to State negligence - Public

interest is better served by enforcing limitation strictly to

promote accountability and timely action.”

13. It is, therefore my considered view that the

petitioner/defendant/appellant being a state-owned, public sector

undertaking, the resources at its disposal are not the personal bounty of

its officers to be squandered due to their whimsical negligence and

carelessness. The petitioner is therefore called upon by this Court to

identify the officers responsible for the crass manner in which the

present case has been pursued; and impose punitive financial liability

upon them to act as a deterrent for dereliction of Duty.

14. Accordingly, present Civil Revision Petition as well as Regular

Second Appeal are dismissed.

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

and RSA-1146-2021 (O&M) 15

15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

28.10.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)

Divyanshi JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No