JYOTSNA PARSOTTAM MEHTA Vs. SUDHIRKUMAR BHAIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the directions of the Apex Court, the appeal was taken up for final disposal. Submissions were heard from time to time. With a view to find out amicable solution, Judgment was not delivered earlier. However, no settlement could be arrived at. Hence, I proceed to deliver the Judgment.

(2.) THE appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and decree dated 11th March 2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Diu.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that an application filed before the trial Court for setting aside the said decree has failed as the decree was not passed under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code). He pointed out that the appellants had engaged and instructed an Advocate who did not bother to attend to the suit. He stated that the appellants were not aware about the death of their Advocate. He pointed out the affidavit of the son of the Advocate which was filed on record of the application for setting aside the exparte decree in which the son of the Advocate has stated that his father had started forgetting things due to loss of memory and old age. He submitted that due to deterioration of his health, he did not appear in the matter prior to his death. He submitted that the impugned Judgment is non speaking Judgment as no reasons have been assigned.