PARMANAND AND ANOTHER Vs. CHHOTEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

(2.) The petitioners were defendants in Original Suit No.256 of 2006 in which they had filed their written statement but, thereafter, remained absent from the proceeding since 28.09.2007. The proceeding continued and an ex-parte decree was passed on 21.01.2009. To set aside the ex-parte decree, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC along with application for condonation of delay was filed on 07.12.2009. To condone the delay and set aside the ex-parte decree it was pleaded that the defendant no.2 is a blind lady and the defendant no.1 had suffered from a liver ailment and, therefore, they could not participate in the proceedings hence, the ex-parte decree be set aside.

(3.) The trial court examined the merit of the application and found that no documentary evidence in respect of liver ailment was brought on record. It found that notice of the suit proceeding was already there with the applicants and counsel for the applicant had been informed about the date fixed, as was apparent from the order sheet, yet the defendants chose not to appear. In that backdrop and in absence of medical document, the claim that the defendant no.1 had suffered from liver ailment was disbelieved and the application was rejected vide impugned order dated 05.10.2011. The petitioners thereafter filed Civil Revision No.64 of 2012 which came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 16.12.2013.