ANKIT SINGH DABAS Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit filed under Order 37 of CPC. A perusal of the order of this Court dated 8th April 2009 shows that in response to summons for judgment served on defendant No.1, he filed his application seeking leave to contest the suit. However, nobody appeared for defendant No.1 on 10th February 2009, 23rd March 2009 and 8th April 2009. The application, therefore, was dismissed for non-prosecution and consequently a decree for recovery of Rs.14 Lacs with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 1st August 2003 was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.1.

(2.) THE case of the applicant/defendant No.1 is that late Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate whom he had engaged for the purpose of this suit, unfortunately expired on 16th October 2008 and, therefore, could not appear when the matter was listed. It is alleged in the application that the applicant was not aware of the demise of late Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate and was in a belief that the matter was being looked after. It is further alleged in the application that on receipt of notice for execution of decree, it was revealed that a decree had been passed in the absence of the applicant, who claims to be government employee.

(3.) A perusal of the orders passed by this Court from time to time would show that Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of applicant/defendant No.1 on 30th November 2007, 7th April 2008, 8th May 2008, 3rd July 2008 and 3rd October 2008, though no Vakalatnama in his favour has been filed. Appearance of Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, on a number of hearings, does support the case setup by the applicant that he was engaged by him for the purpose of this suit. Even otherwise, I see no good reason for a defendant to deliberately absent and suffer a decree, after he has not only engaged an advocate, but also put in appearance and applied for leave to contest.