KISHORE JAIN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications were heard together and can be conveniently disposed of by a single order.

(2.) A suit was filed in this Court claiming recovery of Rs. 13,73,718.78p" being the amount allegedly due to the plaintiff agianst the 14th, 15th and 16th draws of HIM LAXMI Weekly and HIM LAXMI Bumper for the year 1985. A Written Statement was filed in which the territorial jurisdiction of this Court was not accepted. It is the case of the defendants/applicants that their Advocate had informed them that the case would come up for evidence after six or seven years of the filing of the Written Statement and that the Advocate would inform them when the case was listed for this purpose. It is further stated that the applicants had addressed letters to their Advocate seeking advice on the progress of the case, in response to which, by his letter dated 13.1.1993 the Advocate had informed them that he would make enquiries from the High Court and inform them of the position of the case in due course. The applicants have averred that this was not done. It is further stated by them that they learnt of the passing of the ex parte decree only on 11.3.1997 when they received a letter from Shri O.P. Ahuja, Advocate, in this regard. After making necessary enquiries, the two applications, one for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 and the other under Order 9, Rule 13 were filed on 7.4.1997. Notices on these applications were issued by the Court on 10.4.1997.

(3.) The plaintiff/decree-holder has specifically traversed all the averments made in these applications and has perfunctorily denied them, stating that the applicants should be put to strict proof of the same. Beyond this nothing has been stated in the reply which would warrant a direction by the Court to the applicants to prove the statements made in these applications.