TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present applications have been filed by the applicants/defendants No.2 & 3, who are husband and wife, praying inter alia for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 8.9.2004 and for condonation of delay of 2360 days in filing the accompanying application, under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC').

(2.) Vide order dated 8.9.2004, the defendants No.2 & 3 were proceeded against ex-parte and the plaintiffs were directed to file their ex-parte evidence by way of affidavits in a suit for declaration, for execution of the sale deeds and for permanent injunction. Pertinently, the defendant No.1/Bank was also proceeded against ex-parte by the same order. Thereafter, the ex-parte evidence was concluded by the plaintiffs sometime in the year 2005 and the suit was ripe for final arguments.

(3.) The explanation offered by learned counsel for the defendants No.2 & 3 for seeking condonation of delay of 2360 days in filing the accompanying application, under Order IX Rule 7 CPC is that the applicants/defendants No.2 & 3 had engaged a counsel to defend their case and they had signed a vakalatnama in her favour, whereafter, she had assured them that she was following the case diligently and was appearing on all dates and that the present suit was pending consideration by the court. However the defendant No.3 was keeping indifferent health since the year 2000 and the defendant No.2 was also not in good health since the year 2003 and therefore, both of them were unable to follow up their case with their counsel and trusted her to diligently defend the same on their behalf.