ASHOK MAHARAJ Vs. VIRENDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1-3 have filed the application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code alleging that the defendant(2) was present outside the Court and waiting for the Counsel when the ex-parte order was passed by the Joint Registrar. Joint Registrar did not clarify the order and the matter appeared to be adjourned and the defendants' Counsel continued to appear on the subsequent dates of hearing. Non-appearance of the defendants was neither deliberate nor intentional. Counsel of the defendants entrusted the application for being filed in the Registry to his Clerk but he did not do so. It is prayed that the ex- parte order passed by the Joint Registrar may be set aside.

(2.) Plaintiffs have contested the application by filing a detailed reply. It is alleged that the application is not maintainable under the provision of Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code as a decree is yet to be passed against the defendants. With the intention of delaying the case defendants deliberately did not file the application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated July 12, 1996 for more than one year of its passing. Application also does not disclose sufficient ground for the defendants' non-appearance on July 12,1996 when they were proceeded ex-prate by the Court. It is emphatically denied that the ex-parte order was passed by the Joint Registrar and the defendant was present outside the Court room as alleged.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record.