DESAI SAMUBENBEN Vs. PATEL LAXMANBHAI BECHARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Manav Mehta for the petitioners and learned advocate Ms. Archita Prajapati for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioners - heirs and legal representatives of original defendant No.1 preferred an application seeking condonation of delay of 10 months and 4 days for getting setting aside the ex ?parte decree passed against them inter alia contending that learned advocate, who was engaged by them, had neither filed any written statement nor intimated them the status of the case. It is also contended that he never remained present before the court, as a result of which, an ex ?parte decree came to be passed against them and upon coming to know the same, they preferred the aforesaid application, in which, the delay of 10 months and 4 days has occurred. The learned trial court rejected the said application which has been challenged by the petitioners invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that in view of decision in case of Samsunisha Begaum w/o. Dr. Narsrullakhan Dhanmani vs. Vishnukumar Ambalal Patel reported in 2012 (2) GLH 725, the parties to the proceedings should be vigilant and for the default committed by learned advocate, the parties would not get any benefit thereof for the negligence on their part.