PARAS NATH Vs. RAM NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ajay Shanker Pathak.

(2.) When the Suit was filed by the respondent no. 1 against the petitioner, the respondent nos. 2, 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3, the defendant/respondent no. 2 alone filed her written statement. However, the petitioner who was also a defendant in the case, though had filed a Vakalatnama of a counsel had not been able to file his written statement. Resultantly, the Suit was ordered to proceed ex parte on 7.3.2003. Thereafter, 27.4.2003 was fixed for the framing of issues. When the petitioner came to know about the order dated 7.3.2003 by which the case had been ordered to proceed ex parte, he filed an application on 14.2.2008 for recalling the order dated 7.3.2003. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed his objection against the recall application. The recall application was rejected on 7.4.2008 and, therefore, the petitioner filed a revision which was also dismissed on 16.10.2008. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel has submitted that when the Suit was directed to proceed ex parte under Order IX Rule 6 of the C.P.C., then the petitioner had filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the C.P.C. wherein he had assigned good reasons for his previous non-appearance. He submits the Court should have recalled the order to proceed ex parte and should have directed for the hearing of the defendant as if he had appeared on 7.3.2003.