TILAK RAM Vs. MAHARAJO & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the appeal preferred by defendant No.1, are as under :

(2.) In order to answer the substantial questions of law, following facts are required to be noticed.

(3.) Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in proceeding ex-parte on 03-05-1997 and further unjustified in rejecting his application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code ignoring the fact that good cause was shown by defendant No.1 for not appearing on 03-05-1997, as on that date his counsel who was duly engaged by him pleaded no instructions without prior notice to the present appellant/defendant No.1 and as such the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the CPC. He would further submit that the trial Court by its order dated 17-03-2003 is also unjustified in excluding the written statement from consideration as proceeding ex-parte under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code would not bar him (defendant No.1) to file written statement and counter claim. Therefore, the decree passed by the trial Court duly affirmed by the First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside and substantial questions of law be answered in plaintiff's favour.