HARPREET SINGH KALIA Vs. PARAMJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is preferred to assail the orders dtd. 12/7/2022, passed by the learned 5th Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 518 of 2011, Manjeet Singh Vs Smt. Pritam Kaur and others, as well as the order dtd. 5/1/2023, passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Derhadun, in Civil Revision No. 119 of 2022, Harpreet Singh Kalia Vs Manjeet Singh Sudan (deceased) through L.Rs. and others.

(2.) By the first order, the application preferred by the petitioner / defendant No. 3 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex parte proceedings against the said defendant was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in moving the application. By the second order dtd. 5/1/2023, the revision preferred by the petitioner / defendant No. 3 against the first order, has been rejected.

(3.) The petitioner is defendant No. 3 in the aforesaid suit. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte on account of non-appearance of the petitioner / defendant No. 3, and his counsel, on 5/12/2013. Admittedly, the application for seeking setting aside of ex parte proceedings was filed after eight years in the year 2021. The only explanation furnished by the petitioner was that he was pursuing other legal proceedings, and that his Advocate, engaged by him to pursue the aforesaid suit, has stopped appearing without instructions. The learned trial court, as well the revisional court have not found merit in the aforesaid grounds taken by the petitioner, and in my view, rightly so. Merely because the petitioner may have been pursuing other litigation was no ground for him to not pursue the suit in question. It is very convenient for the petitioner to put the blame on his counsel for not appearing in the matter. In response to a query by the Court, learned counsel submits that no steps have been taken against the counsel before the State Bar Council for professional misconduct, for allegedly not appearing without instructions. Pertinently, the same counsel was retained by the petitioner to pursue the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. By allowing the applications, the plaintiff could not be put to grave prejudice, such that the suit is thrown back by eight years.