REENA SADH Vs. ANJANA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these proceedings the appellant has picked up a conflict with the ex-parte judgment, which according to her was passed without service to her. Vide his order dated 23.12.2006, the learned Additidnal District Judge dismissed the application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. In support of her case, she has enumerated the following grounds. Firstly, the decree holder had instituted a suit for recovery which was decreed with costs by the Court of learned Additional District Judge against the judgment debtors wherein the judgment debtors were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 14,50,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum, both pendente lite and future, till the realization of the amount. It is averred that the suit of recovery was filed against firm M/s Renuka Inc., Judgment Debtor No. 4. So far as the appellant is concerned, she is neither a Director nor Partner nor she is holding any interest in the firm. Despite this, she was impleaded as a party in the suit. It is explained that she was only an employee of the defendant's firm. Even if it is assumed that any amount was due and payable to the decree holder/plaintiff, then it was the liability of M/s Renuka Incorporation or its Partners to pay the amount and not that of the appellant.

(2.) The key ground set up by the appellant/defendant No. 3 was that she was not properly served in this case. The gist of the ordersheets concerning the appellant is as follows. The ordersheet dated 30.08.2001 goes to show that the appellant/defendant No. 3 was served for the said date. On 21.02.2002, it was recorded that defendant No. 3 was absent despite service. Learned counsel for the defendants No. 1,2 and 4 Mr. K.K. Sharma submitted that he intended to seek instructions from defendant No. 3 for representing her. The case was adjourned to 22.07.2002. On 22.07.2002, time was sought by the defendants to file written statement whereas written statement of defendants No. 1,2 and 4 was already filed. The case was adjourned to 12.02.2003. The case was taken upon 13.02.2003, Learned counsel for the defendants No. 1,2 and 4 again stated that he would seek instructions from defendant No. 3 as well. It was ordered that written statement be filed by defendant No. 3 within a period of two weeks. The case was adjourned to 08,08.2003. On 08.08.2003, Shri N.P. Kaushik, Learned Joint Registrar of this Court passed the following order:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the trial court proceeded with the suit on the assumption that the learned counsel, who was appearing for the other defendants is also representing the appellant Reena Sadh. No vakalatnama on behalf of appellant/defendant was filed. No memo of appearance was filed on her behalf.