NIRMALA DEVI Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE CHANDAULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order of the trial Court dated 10-2-2003 and also the order of the appellate Court dated 23-3- 2006 whereby petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 25-2- 2000 has been dismissed.

(3.) AS regards the other case of N. Balakrishnan (supra), the delay in moving the application for restoration of the suit under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. , the trial Court had found the explanation given by the defendant-applicant as satisfactory and the High Court had reversed that order of the trial Court. Here, the two Courts below were of the concurrent view that the explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in moving the Court for setting aside the ex parte decree was not duly substantiated by cogent piece of evidence. Therefore, the principle of that case also would not be applicable on the facts of this case.