1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2009 1. M/s. Rukminirama Steel Rollings Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956), having registered office at L-26, Cuncolim Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa represented herein by its Managing Director, Shri B. Raghavendra. 2. Shri B. Raghavendra, Managing Director, Rukminirama Steel Rollings Pvt. Ltd., having office at L-26, Cuncolim Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa. ... Appellants versus 1. The Chief Electrical Engineer Electricity Department, Government of Goa, Vidyut Bhawan, Panaji, Goa. 2. The State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, having office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 3. The Director, Mines & Industries, Government of Goa, Udyog Bhawan, Panaji, Goa. ... Respondents 2 Shri M. S. Sonak and Shri P. Rao, Advocates for the Appellants. Shri S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Shri A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N. H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 4TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT(Per N. H. PATIL, J.) Admit. 2. Notice of admission is waived by learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. 3. The appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. 4. The Appellants purchased an industrial unit in auction in the year 2004. There were outstanding electricity dues against the industrial establishment. The Respondents raised a demand. There is no dispute on the issue that the Appellants deposited the amount under demand to the tune of Rs.62,32,496/- and Rs.1,16,443/-. Thereafter, the Appellants filed a suit for recovery of the said amount. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and the learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents state that evidence was recorded in the suit. 3 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that on the day of arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants could not remain present in the Court as he reached late. The trial Court proceeded to decide the suit on merits, and after recording the evidence dismissed the suit with costs by Judgment and Order dated 11-12-2008. The said Judgment and Decree is impugned in this First Appeal. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants referred to the provisions of Order 9, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code and has placed reliance on reported Judgments in the case of Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board and another(1995(2) SCC 648) and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd.(AIR 2004 SC 2171). 8. The learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents submits that the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants could not advance his arguments and the trial Court decided the suit on merits in the absence of the arguments by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and has further submitted that the Respondents are not joining with the issues raised by the Appellants herein that the learned Counsel reached late, and, therefore could not advance his arguments. 9. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, both the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and the learned Advocate General 4 fairly state before this Court that the matter could be remanded to the trial Court so that appropriate opportunity is afforded to the contesting parties. We do find that the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants are required to be heard in the matter so that no prejudice is caused to the Appellants. 10. We are therefore inclined to allow this appeal and remand the matter back to the trial Court on the ground that the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants was not heard on merits of the matter. 11. The trial Court shall also take into consideration the Judgments cited supra by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants before this Court and thereafter shall deliver the Judgment and Order on its own merits and law. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. 12. The impugned Judgment and Order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. We direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. 13. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 27-1-2010 at 10.00 a.m. Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. N. A. BRITTO, J. NARESH H. PATIL, J. RD 5