RAJNI SHARMA Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief, among others:

(2.) When the ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner, she moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. along with application under Sec. 5 Limitation Act. All these applications were dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 29.02016. The defendant-petitioner preferred a Misc. Civil Appeal, which too was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. Hence, present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the sole respondent objected such move of the petitioner by arguing that despite issuing notice and even after filing the written statement, the defendant-petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court on 13 dates fixed, from 21.08.2014 to 22.08.2015 and, therefore, when the petitioner or her counsel did not appear before the Trial Court, the Trial Court was compelled to pass an ex parte order/decree against her. Learned counsel for the sole respondent also submitted that the petitioner appeared before the Executing Court only when the notice of execution was served upon her.