SUMAN KUMARI Vs. VIJAY KUMAR SHAROHA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns three orders dated 03.04.2013, 31.07.2013 and 29.01.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court in suit No. 148 of 2013. By the first aforesaid order, the case was listed for admission and denial of documents, framing of issues and arguments on the interim application. The Court noted that the matter was passed over several times since morning but nobody had appeared for defendant Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly these defendants were proceeded ex-parte. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were given four weeks to file their Written Statement (WS). Parties were at liberty to file their respective original documents and they were further directed to be present on the next date of hearing for conducting admission denial of documents. On 31.07.2013 Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 were present in person. Defendant No. 3 was represented by counsel but none had appeared for defendant No. 2. The Court was of the view that defendant No. 1 was not the main contesting defendant who had been served on 13th February, 2013 but since no WS had been filed, the right to file WS should be closed and her defence was also struck off. The Court framed four issues and furthermore, noted that no other issue arose or had been pressed for. List of witnesses were directed to be filed within 15 days thereof. After exchange of copies between the parties, affidavit by way of evidence of witnesses of the plaintiff was required to be filed in the Court before the next date of hearing which was fixed as 30.08.2013.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 11th October, 2013, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court along with her husband but due to default in appearance of their counsel, the matter was adjourned for cross examination. It was further submitted that on 21st November, 2013 when the case was next listed, the petitioner i.e. defendant No. 1 again appeared before the Court along with her counsel and PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and discharged; that the petitioner's counsel had drawn the attention of the Court to their application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and another application seeking review of the order of 31.07.2013 whereupon the matter was adjourned with direction to supply the copies of the application to counsel for the plaintiff within a week thereof and the case was then adjourned for arguments on the applications on 29th January, 2014.

(3.) This Court is of the view that the order dismissing the said application on 29th January, 2014 does not suffer from any material irregularity and the conclusion arrived at is based upon the records. It is noted that despite service of notice and time having been granted for filing of WS, there was default in filing it as well as in appearance before the Court on 03.04.2013.