GOVIND RAM BASANTANI, Vs. GOPALJI MANDIR TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by Defendants No.1 and 2 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.83/2016 by which, the trial Court, while allowing the application preferred under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC by the plaintiff, has set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 06.11.2012 passed in counter claim of the defendants. The parties to this Revision Petition shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.

(2.) Shri Naik learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order impugned as passed by the trial Court allowing the plaintiff's application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC by setting aside the said ex parte judgment and decree is apparently contrary to law. While inviting attention to the order sheet of the trial Court dated 29.06.2012, it is contented that the trial Court while dismissing the plaintiff's suit for non-prosecution proceeded ex parte and after considering the evidence led by the defendants, decreed their counter claim on 06.11.2012. According to him, the plaintiff has failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 29.06.2012, as such, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the said application for setting aside the said ex parte judgment and decree.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the Applicants and perused the entire papers annexed with this memo of revision petition carefully.