LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-167

G LALITHAMBA Vs. R PRAKASH

Decided On August 25, 2012
G LALITHAMBA Appellant
V/S
R PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner - plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree of injunction and declaration. The respondent � defendant was held exparte. Thereafter, he filed I.A. No.6, under Section � 151 of C.P.C., seeking four weeks time to engage a counsel to represent him. I.A. No.7 was filed under Order � IX, Rule � 7, read with Section � 151 of C.P.C., seeking to recall the order placing him exparte. The Trial Court vide the impugned order allowed both the applications. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set- aside. That the Affidavit in support of the applications lacks bonafides. That the Trial Court has misdirected itself in allowing the applications. That no valid reasons are assigned in the Affidavit. Hence, the Trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned order and interference is called for.

(3.) .Thereafter, the application has been filed. On considering the same, the Trial Court was of the view that sufficient cause has been made and hence allowed the application. It was also of the view that the absence is bonafide and the order treating him exparte requires to be set-aside.