Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010047332024 2025:GAU-AS:16862 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MC/19/2024 JOHNSON EASTERN POWER REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, PHILIP VANLALMAWIA JOHN, ZUANGTUI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ZUANGTUI, AIZAWL, MIZORAM VERSUS THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT MIZORAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR ARNAB BISWAS, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A ROY, In Arb.A. Case No. 8603/2023 With Arb.A. Case No. 8603/2023 (Filing Number) ------------ Advocate for : MR. A R MALHOTRA Advocate for : appearing for THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF PHE DEPTT. A Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 05.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner, M/s Johnson Eastern Power praying for restoration of the Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008/2023 filed in Arb. Appeal with Filing No. 8603/2023, which was dismissed for default by this court on 26.09.2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellant had filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Aizawl Bench of Gauhati High Court. The said appeal was registered as Arbitration Appeal No. 01/2022 and as there was a delay of 06 days in preferring the appeal, and application for condonation of delay was also filed along with the said appeal. The said application was registered as I.A. (Civil) No. 58/2022 at Aizawl Bench. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when no effective orders was passed in the said case for a considerable long period of time, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 22.06.2023 addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this court for transferring the said cases to the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court. Accordingly, the aforesaid cases were transferred to the Principal Seat. Same was Page No.# 3/9 intimated to the petitioner by the Assistant Registrar (Judicial), Aizawl Bench, Gauhati High Court, informally, by handing over the covering letter dated 29.06.2023 intimating the fact of transmission of records of the aforesaid cases to the Principal Seat. 5. In the Principal Seat, the delay condonation application, i.e. I.A. (Civil) No. 58/2022 (of the Aizawl Bench) was re-numbered as Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008/2023 and the Arbitration Appeal No. 01/2022 (of the Aizawl Bench) was not registered and only a Filing No. 8603/2023 was allotted to it. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was never intimated about the re-numbering of the aforesaid case, neither the engaged counsel of the petitioner, who were from the Aizawl Bar were intimated about the re-numbering of the aforesaid interlocutory application and Arbitration Appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter on three occasions, i.e. on 31.07.2023, 28.08.2023 and 26.09.2023 the interlocutory application for condonation of the delay which was numbered as Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008/2023 was listed. However, as the petitioner and their engaged counsel were completely in dark about the re-numbering of the cases, the petitioner remained unrepresented before the court when the said matter was called up and accordingly, the aforesaid Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008/2023 was dismissed for default by order dated 26.09.2023. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Page No.# 4/9 engaged counsel for the petitioner were from Aizawl and as they were not informed about the re-numbering of the aforesaid interlocutory application, they were unable to appear before the court when the matter was listed and as such, he submits that the circumstances may be regarded as sufficient cause which prevented the engaged counsel for the petitioner from appearing before the court, when the matter was called on for hearing. He submits that the co-ordinate bench of this court has already condoned the delay of 126 days in preferring the instant application for restoration of Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008/2023 after considering the fact that the petitioner were prevented by sufficient cause from approaching this court. Hence, he submits that a liberal view of the matter may be taken and the Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008/2023 may be re-admitted. 9. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited following rulings: - i. “Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries -Vs- Gujrat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr” reported in “(2010) 5 SCC 459;” ii. “B. Madhuri Goud -Vs- B. Damodar Reddy” reported in “(2012) 12 SCC 693;” iii. “N. Balakrishnan –Vs- M. Krishnamurthy” reported in “(1998) 7 SCC 123;” iv. “M.K. Prasad Vs. P. Arumugam” reported in “(2001) 6 SCC 176;” Page No.# 5/9 v. “Dr. Shah Faesal and Others –Vs- Union of India and Anr.” reported in“(2020) 4 SCC 1;” vi. “Mary Pushpam –Vs- Telvi Curusumary and Others” reported in “(2024) 3 SCC 224.” 10. On the other hand, Mr. A. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the restoration of Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008/2023 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause which prevented him from appearing before the court on three occasions when the aforesaid interlocutory application was called on for hearing. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the aforesaid interlocutory application, along with the Arbitration Appeal was transferred from Aizawl Bench of Gauhati High Court to the Principal Seat on a prayer of the petitioner. Hence, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to be vigilant about the same and keep track of the cause-list of the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court regarding the listing of the said matter. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to expect that the Registry ought to have informed the petitioner about the re-numbering of the case in the Principal Seat. He submits that it is for the litigant to remain vigilant about listing of the matter before the court, moreso, when the transfer of the aforesaid cases to the Principal Seat was made on an application filed by the petitioner. Page No.# 6/9 13. He submits that as the cause-list are published online in the official website of the Gauhati High Court, hence, it was not difficult on the part of the petitioner or his engaged counsel to keep track of the cause- list. He submits that the petitioner willfully neglected in appearing before the court when the matter was called on for hearing. Hence, by taking the plea of legitimate expectations and blaming the Registry for its failure to inform the petitioner about re-numbering of the case, the petitioner may not be absolved of the liability of becoming indolent. 14. He submits that the matter was listed on three occasions and the petitioner failed to appear on any of the three occasions. Hence, the petitioner has failed to show that there was a bonafide on its part to remain present when the matter was called on for hearing. He submits that petitioner has failed to show that its engaged counsel were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the court when the matter was called on for hearing. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the defendant has cited following rulings: - i. “Parimal -Vs-Veena Alias Bharti” reported in “(2011)3 SCC 545;” ii. “Kailash Devi Khanna and Others –Vs- DD Global Capital Ltd. and Others” reported in “2019 SCC Online Del 9954;” iii. “Delhi Wakf Board -Vs-Mohd. BI and Others” reported in “2019 SCC Online Del 7178;” Page No.# 7/9 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 16. To consider the question as to whether the Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008/2023 may be restored or readmitted, this court has to come to a finding that the petitioner was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before the court when the aforesaid interlocutory application was called on for hearing. We have seen that the main grounds taken by the petitioner for the default in appearing before the court on dates on which the matter was called on for hearing is that the petitioner or his engaged counsel were not aware about re-numbering of Interlocutory Application No. 58/2022 as Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008 of 2023 in the Principal Seat as no such intimation was given to them by the Registry. 17. It appears that the present Misc. Case for restoration was also filed after a delay of 126 days. However, the said delay was condoned by a co-ordinate bench of this court by order dated 01.08.2025 in Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 737/2024 after finding that the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. It appears that in the Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 737/2024, the grounds which are taken in the instant Misc. Case were also taken by the petitioner and the co-ordinate bench of this court in the said case held the said grounds to be the sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which caused delay in preferring the instant Misc. Case for restoration of the Page No.# 8/9 Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008 of 2023. 18. The question which now arises is as to whether this court is bound by the finding of the co-ordinate bench in Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 737/2024. Though this court is of considered opinion that the petitioner could have been more diligent in keeping track of the cause-list of this court after the aforesaid delay condonation petition and arbitration appeal were transferred to the Principal Seat on its own application, however, it would be improper to give a contrary finding on similar facts than that of the co-ordinate bench of this court in Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 737/2024. Moreso, when the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 737/2024 has not been challenged before any forum by the respondent’s side. 19. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of considered opinion that the grounds shown by the petitioner in the petition filed for restoration of Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008/2023 may be considered as sufficient cause which prevented the engaged counsel of the petitioner to appear before the court on three occasions when the said interlocutory application was listed. 20. Accordingly, this Misc. Case is allowed and the Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 2008/2023 is restored. 21. The Registry is directed to do the needful accordingly and list the matter in Orders Column in the next week on a date to be fixed by it. 22. This miscellaneous case is accordingly disposed of. Page No.# 9/9 JUDGE Comparing Assistant