Rekha Sharma, J.@mdashThe appellant before me is the Indian Institute of Science. It had filed a suit against the respondent, namely, National Building Construction Corporation Limited for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,16,443/-. The suit was instituted in this Court, i.e. the High Court of Delhi on October 24, 1992. In response to the suit, the respondent not only filed written statement and thereby disputed the claim of the appellant but also raised its own claim against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 16,65,028.34P. That was done by way of counter-claim which was registered as C.C. No. 2498 of 1994. The appellant was represented in the suit as well as in the counter-claim through a counsel but only till April 05, 2000. Thereafter, none appeared for the appellant. Hence, on September 19, 2000 the suit was dismissed in default and in the counter-claim, the appellant was proceeded ex-parte. The counter-claim was at the stage of final hearing when it was transferred to the Court of the District Judge at Tis Hazari, Delhi, as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court in the meanwhile got raised to Rs. 20 lacs and the matter, thus, was to be heard at the level of District Judge/Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge who heard the matter vide his order dated March 20, 2004 decreed the counter-claim of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 16,65,028.34P. and also awarded interest @ 12% per annum on that amount from the date of institution of the counter-claim till the date of realization, along with cost of the counter-claim.
2. The appellant, in the meanwhile, remained blissfully unaware of the dismissal of its suit and the decree passed against it in the counter-claim of the respondent. It says that it came to know about the decree against it only in the beginning of the year 2006 in a meeting held between its Registrar and the officers of the respondent. Consequent thereto, it made a request to the officers of the respondent to furnish particulars of the decree which were made available to it in the middle of 2006. Thereafter, in the first week of July, 2006 it contacted a Supreme Court lawyer through whom it came to know the details of the decree and further came to know that its'' own suit for the recovery of Rs. 12,16,443/- was dismissed in default on September 19, 2000. Armed with this information, its officers visited Delhi in the middle of August, 2006 to discuss the matter with a local lawyer. Finally, a decision was taken to file an appropriate application for restoration of the suit and for setting-aside of the ex-parte decree. Hence, three applications were filed on October 03, 2006; one under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC (hereinafter called the Code) for setting-aside of the order dated September 19, 2000 dismissing the suit in default; the other under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting-aside of the ex-parte decree dated March 20, 2004 passed in the counter-claim of the respondent, and the third u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the said two applications. The learned Additional District Judge who heard the applications dismissed the same vide order dated October 12, 2006 holding that they were filed much after the expiry of the period of limitation and that the application for condonation of delay did not disclose sufficient ground to condone the delay. It is this order of October 12, 2006 against which the present appeal has been preferred.
3. The only reason that has been put-forth by the appellant in not prosecuting the suit and in not contesting the counter-claim of the respondent after April 05, 2000 is the frequent changes in its administrative set-up at the level of the Registrar and in its Estate Office at the level of Project Engineer-cum-Estate Officer from the date of institution of the suit in the year 1992 till the year 2006, resulting in lack of supervision and follow-up with the Advocate in Delhi. Reference in this regard was made to the contents of the applications filed for setting-aside of the order dated September 19, 2000 dismissing the suit in default and for setting-aside of the ex-parte decree dated March 20, 2004. As per the applications, Shri P.S. Venkateswaran was the Registrar when the case was instituted in the year 1992. He retired in the year 1995 and on his retirement, Prof. B.R. Srinivasmurthy took charge in August, 1995 and from him Mr. R.G. Nadadur took over in October, 1998. Mr. R.G. Nadadur left the Institute in 1999. He was succeeded by Mr. B.V. Ramakrishna who retired in May, 2000 and upon his retirement, Dr. Uday Balakrishnan took charge. He continued till July, 2006. As regards the Estate Office, Mr. Mutt ivenkataswamy was the Project Engineer-cum-Estate Officer at the time of filing of the suit. He was succeeded by Mr. Chikkappa in the year 1992 and from him Mr. Gururaja took over in the year 1998. Thereafter, Mr. Nagaraja took charge in the year 2003. However, Mr. Nagaraja left the Institute and in his place, Mr. Rajashekhar had taken the charge in December, 2004 and from him, Mr. G. Muninarayanaswamy took charge in the year 2006.
4. The question which arises for consideration is, whether the details as disclosed in the applications with regard to the change of officers in the administrative set-up and in the Estate Office of the appellant are such that can be said to constitute sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the applications and justify non-appearance of the appellant after the year 2000?
5. As noticed above, it was only after April 05, 2000 that the case remained unrepresented from the side of the appellant. That being so, any reference to Shri P.S. Venkateswaran, Prof. B.R. Srinivasmurthy & Shri R.G. Nadadur is irrelevant for so long as these officers held the post of Registrar, there was no default in appearance. It was during the tenures of Shri B.V. Ramakrishna and Dr. Uday Balakrishnan that the case remained unattended. The appellant thus was liable to explain inaction or lack of supervision on the part of these officers. It is normal practice in any administrative set-up that when an officer is replaced by another, handing and taking over the charge takes place and all important files are entrusted by the officer demitting the office to his successor. Is it that Shri B.V. Ramakrishna did not hand over the case to Dr. Uday Balakrishnan, or is it, Dr. Uday Balakrishnan failed to supervise the case diligently and effectively? In the absence of any pleading as to what happened and what went wrong when these two officers were working as Registrars, one can only assume that either such a procedure was not followed in the office of the appellant, or if it was followed, then the reason for not attending to the case cannot be mere change in the Registrars. In any case, Dr. Uday Balakrishnan remained as Registrar from the year 2000 till 2006. Did he have no inkling of the case during these years and, if not, why not? The applications are totally silent as to what happened and one is unable to find out the real reason. Likewise, there is no explanation why the Project Engineer-cum-Estate Officers of the Institute who held the post from time to time between the years 1992 to 2006 did not attend to the case. It appears to me that either the officers who took charge did not bother to pursue the case or there was a total chaos and mismanagement, both in the administrative set-up and Estate Office of the appellant-Institute. In either case, the inaction on their part is inexcusable.
6. Having said so, let me for the sake of argument assume that the persons who took charge as Registrars or Project Engineer-cum-Estate Officers, for any reason were not aware of the pendency of the case but then what explanation does the appellant has for not moving swiftly after it came to know in the beginning of the year 2006 that the counter-claim of the respondent had been decreed. The truth is that even after coming to know of this fact, it did not swing into action. There was no sense of urgency on its part. It was just not prepared to come out of its slumber. All that it did was to seek details of the decree from the respondent and waited for that information to come which was received in the middle of the year 2006 but even then, it was not prepared to shed its lethargy for it was only in the middle of August, 2006 that its officers went to Delhi and two months thereafter, the applications were filed in October, 2006. No doubt, the Apex Court has in number of judgments said that the Courts should make endeavour to do substantial justice by disposing of matters on merits and not get mired in technicalities, such as delay etc., but it also says that a party seeking restoration of a suit or an appeal has to show sufficient cause in not attending to the case. The facts of the present case do not, in my view, constitute sufficient cause. It is a case of total inaction, indifference and callousness. The appellant remained in a state of limbo for 6 long years and even alter it had come to know about the fate of its suit and the decree against it, it was in no hurry.
7. The details, as noticed above, go to indicate that there has been a complete lack of supervision in the office of the appellant and there appeared to be no accountability at any level. The appellant must be made to suffer for its lapses. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
