RITA GARMENTS Vs. GHANSHYAM BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.(M) 531 of 2006 is directed against orders dated 17.12.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Judge has, while disposing of the application under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC, disallowed the same on the ground that the absence of Counsel can hardly be justified ground for adjournment.

(2.) Counsel fo'r the petitioner submits that he was pursuing the proceedings challenging the dissolution of Bihar Vidhan Sabha which was pending in the Supreme Court where it was required to file written arguments in the Registry. He contends that since he was busy in the Supreme Court, the trial Court should have adjourned the matter and this ground should be sufficient to set aside the ex parte proceedings. He relies upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Shanti Devi andAnr., 20 (1981) DLT 415=AIR 1982 Delhi 159.

(3.) I have heard Counsel and have gone through the order under challenge. It appears to me that absence of Counsel is no ground for the Court to stay proceedings. The judgment cited is based on its own facts and certainly does not lay down law that in the absence of Counsel, the Court is bound to stay its hands. In any event of the matter, in this particular case, there has been an earlier default which was condoned and the order of ex parte set aside. I am of the opinion that this lackadaisical approach can hardly be approved. This is not a fit case where the the order under challenge deserves to be set aside. Civil Misc. (Main) No. 531 of 2006 and CM. Appl. No. 3864/2006 are accordingly dismissed. CM(M) 531/2006 and CM Appl. 3864 of 2006 dismissed.