VEENA AGARWAL Vs. UNJHA AYURVEDIC PHARMACY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is arising out of an order passed rejecting the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure. The plea of the appellant herein that the decree, which has been passed on 17th May 2006 is ex-parte so far the appellant is concerned. Even on a cursory look of the fact we find that the appellant, the respondent No. 4 were the intending sellers of the property in question. So for as the respondent No. 4 is concerned, the decree is not ex-parte.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took the plea that Mr. H. S. Mathur, learned Advocate was appearing as Counsel for the defendant/appellant in the Court below. Mr. Devendra Vajpayee, learned Advocate was engaged as Counsel by the appellant on 29th April 2005. At the time of transfer of the case from one Court to another, no notice was served upon him, which ultimately resulted in passing an ex-parte decree so far the appellant is concerned.

(3.) HOWEVER, we have come to know that another appeal has already been filed by the appellant from the ex-parte decree itself which is appearing in the list under the heading 'first Appeal Defective' for the reasons that sufficient Court fee has not been deposited.