National Insurance Co Ltd v. Rajesh Jha & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. mw

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM (M) No. 1139/2010 & CM No. 15983/2010 (stay) % Judgment reserved on: 6th September, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 9th September, 2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office No.2 IIIrd Floor, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Bhawan 7E, Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi Through its Senior Divisional Manager …..Petitioner Through: Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate. Versus 1. Sh. Rajesh Jha S/o Sh. Jai Dev Jha C/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Vinayak G-45, Bali Nagar, New Delhi-15. 2. Sh. Vijay Kumar Vinayak S/o Sh. Viswanath Vinayak G-45, Bali Nagar, New Delhi-15. ….Respondents Through: None Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 12.8.2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. 2. Brief facts as apparent from record are that, petitioner filed a suit for recovery against respondent in 2005. Issues were framed on 13.4.2007. Thereafter, large number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner to examine its witnesses but it did not examine any witness till date as apparent from the petition nor it is mentioned in the entire petition as to what was the first date of evidence. 3. Be that as it may be, on 5.7.2010 when matter was fixed for petitioner"s evidence no witness of petitioner was present nor previous cost were paid by the petitioner. It would be pertinent to point out that, even regular counsel of petitioner was not present. Under these circumstances, trial court closed the evidence of petitioner. 4. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for recall of order dated 5.7.2010, which was dismissed by the trial court, vide the impugned order. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that, the trial Judge completely ignored the genuine difficulty and bonafide ground for non-appearance of the counsel and witness on 5.7.2010 when traffic in entire city was in bad shape due to Delhi/Bharat Bandh. Under these circumstances, non-appearance of petitioner and its witness was justified and impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this Article is limited. 7. Article 227 of The Constitution of India reads as under; "227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court- (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may- (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein; Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed forces." 8. In Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954, SC 215, the court observed; "This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C. J., in –"Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. V. Sukumar Mukherjee", AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB) (B), to be exercis