HP Beverage Ltd vs. Chanchal Kumar and others COMS No. 14 of 2018 01.01.2025 Present: Mr. Aditya Sood, Advocate, for the applicant/plaintiff. Mrs. Srishti Chauhan, Advocate for non-applicant/ defendant No. 1. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for non- applicant/defendant No. 2. Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate for non-applicant/defendant No. 3. Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate for non- applicant/defendant No. 4. Ms. Shivani Priya, Advocate vice Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate for non-applicant/defendant No. 5. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate for non-applicant/ defendant No. 6. OMP No. 1163 of 2024 By way of this application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant has made a prayer for recall of order dated 22.12.2023, in terms whereof, the suit was dismissed nor non-prosecution. Learned Counsel for the applicant has apprised the Court that non-representation on behalf of the plaintiff on the date concerned was for the reason that despite the fact that a Counsel stood engaged by the plaintiff-Company, he did not appear before the Court nor any intimation was sent by him to the Company with regard to his inability to put in appearance, who stood appointed as Additional Advocate General. Learned Counsel for the applicant thus prayed that as the non- appearance on behalf of the plaintiff was not intentional, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, order dated 22.12.2023 is recalled and the suit is heard on merit. Though, learned Counsel for the non-applicants have opposed the application, but this Court is of the considered view that as it has not been disputed before the Court that the learned Counsel, who was earlier representing the plaintiff-Company, stood appointed as Additional Advocate General and as under these circumstances, he did not appear before the Court on behalf of the plaintiff, the civil suit was dismissed for non prosecution. Though, learned Counsel earlier representing the plaintiff should have been careful and should have intimated the plaintiff about his inability to appear before the Court, which obviously appears not to have been done in the present case, but then, the plaintiff-Company cannot be made to suffer on account of acts of omission on the part of the Counsel. Accordingly, this application is allowed and order dated 22.12.2023 is recalled and the civil suit is restored to its original number. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 01, 2025 (narender)