NOOR ALAM Vs. IRSHAD AZMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by order dated 14-03-2013, by which, application of the petitioners for setting aside ex parte order has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioners are defendants in the civil suit. On 24-04-2012, as the petitioners-defendants did not appear before the Court below, the trial Court proceeded ex parte against them. Thereafter, when the petitioners filed an application for setting aside ex parte order, the same was rejected by the Court below on 25-06-2012 (Annexure P-4) by upholding the objection that the application is not properly signed by the defendants No. 1 to 4. After that, another application was filed by the petitioners for setting aside ex parte order, the Court below vide other dated 14-03-2013 (Annexure P-6) rejected the application by stating that earlier application of the petitioners-defendants have already been rejected, therefore, second application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected.

(3.) Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the case was not fixed for hearing, therefore, the Court could not have proceeded ex parte against the petitioners. It is next submitted that even if the Court below had jurisdiction, the first application of the petitioners was rejected on technical grounds, and thereafter, when second application was submitted, the Court below ought to have considered the same on merits rather than rejecting the application on the ground that their earlier application had already been rejected. Sufficient cause was shown by the petitioners for their non-appearance. In the interest of justice, the Court below ought to have allowed the petitioners to contest the suit on merits.