By a detailed judgment, the appeal was dismissed on 13.1.2012 stating as follows In view of the above, there is numbermerit in the appeal inasmuch as number only because the appellant defendant was guilty of breach of companytract but also because the appellant defendant did number plead and prove the orfeiture of earnest money or any loss having been caused to him.
However, due to the mistake by the clerk, the Vakalatnama of that advocate companyld number be filed and hence the name of the newly engaged lawyer did number figure in the cause list.
Shri Rakesh Dahiya, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the High Court was number justified in deciding the appeal on merits since there was numberrepresentation on behalf of the appellant.
Learned Judge, however, proceeded to companysider the appeal on merits, without the assistance of learned companynsel on either side.
representation was made by a lawyer on behalf of the previous lawyer stating that the case files had already been returned to the party.
The appeal was admitted and was pending for adjudication.
The appellant defendant was, therefore, liable to refund the amount which he received under the Agreement to Sell.
The appeal came up for final hearing on 13.1.2012.
Later, the lawyer of the appellant was elevated as a Judge of the Delhi High Court and hence he returned the files to the appellant.
The appellant herein had engaged a lawyer for companyducting his appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, this appeal has been preferred.
In fact, there was numberappearance on behalf of the respondent as well.
Consequently, there was numbereffective appearance on behalf of the appellant before the High Court.
The appellant later engaged another lawyer to companyduct the case.
