JOBY Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal depicts a classic instance as to how a litigant can abuse the process of court.

(2.) The defendant in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant in this appeal, which is directed against an order passed by the court below dismissing his application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent had filed the above suit way back in the year 2002. It is beyond controversy that the appellant/defendant had remained absent on crucial dates whenever the case came up for trial on previous occasions. On all the previous occasions, the court below had shown indulgence. The ex parte orders against him (on one occasion an ex parte decree as well) were set aside. Ultimately when the suit came up for trial in February, 2006, the appellant remained absent again and he was set ex parte. The suit was decreed on February 7, 2006. It was thereafter that the appellant had preferred the present application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.

(3.) The court below had adverted to the previous conduct of the appellant in great detail in the order. We have carefully perused the impugned order and the relevant materials on record. It is seen that in the year 2003, the appellant/petitioner had remained absent and he was set ex parte. The application filed by him to set aside ex parte order was allowed. Later he again remained absent when the case came up for trial. He was set ex parte. A decree followed. That ex parte decree was also set aside. Yet again on the third occasion, the appellant/petitioner repeated the performance and the court below once again set aside the order and gave him a further chance. This is the fourth occasion when the petitioner has tried the same play.