1987 INSC 0189
                                                  Surindra Chawla

                                                           Vs

                                      Commissioner, Sanchaita Investment

                                          Civil Appeal No. 773 of 1987

                                           (M. P. Thakkar, B. C. Ray JJ)

                                                      23.03.1987

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave granted. Heard both sides. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Court was perfectly
justified in disposing of the matter in the absence of the appellant who was not vigilant to remain
present and show cause, in the circumstances of the case. We are, however, persuaded by the
argument that ultimately as a matter of fact the appellant has had no opportunity to satisfy the court
that the flat in question was not liable to be attached even if the situation was attributable to a fault
to a fault on his part. It is no doubt true that the appellant has had to opportunity because he did not
avail of the opportunity on September 5, 1986. However, since the matter has far-reaching
consequences in respect of a very valuation property and the appellant has no other forum of
approach, we are inclined to grant an opportunity to the appellant to show cause to the High Court
provided no auction has taken place. Counsel for the appellant solemnly assures that it has not taken
place. The counsel for respondent has no instructions or information on this point. If this statement
is correct, the appellant shall be given one opportunity to produce oral and documentary evidence in
support of his contention. We, therefore, allow the appeal to this limited extent on the assumption
that the auction has not taken place and request the High Court to list the matter for early hearing in
order to decide the issue on merits after hearing the other side. The appellant undertakes that he will
not seek any adjournment in the High Court. If he seeks an adjournment, the High Court would be
perfectly justified in refusing it. This Court will not interfere in case the matter has again to be
decided ex parte by reason of the absence of the appellant or his failure to produce the evidence on
the date fixed by the High Court. However, this order must be made conditional on the appellant
paying Rs. 10,000 as costs to the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investment (respondent herein) within
30 days from today and on paying such costs as may have actually been incurred in connection with
the auction proceedings. The learned Registrar of the High Court will ascertain the amount so
expended and the amount so ascertained will have to be paid by the appellant to the respondent
within 30 days of the determination.

2. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, the matter is sent back to the High Court for further
proceeding in accordance with law. In case the statement made earlier that the auction has already
taken place is incorrect and auction has in fact (sic not) taken place, the appeal will standing
dismissed. No costs.

</html