(1.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. THE petitioner was added as defendant No. 4 in the suit proceedings. Summons of the case were served on the son of the petitioner/defendant No. 4. THEreafter, case was listed on 21.9.2006 for the presence of defendants. On21.9.2006, petitioner/defendant No. 4 was not present, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte. THEreafter, in the suit proceedings, the written statement was filed, issues were framed, the evidence was recorded and the case was listed for final arguments on 6/4/2010. THE arguments were heard and the matter was fixed for pronouncement of the judgment on 7.4.2010. On the aforesaid date, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment. THEreafter, on 19/4/2010, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings against him. He contended in the application that, he had no knowledge about the ex-parte proceeding and on 16/4/2010, he came to know about the ex-parte proceeding when the villagers of the village had been talking about the pendency of the suit. THEn, he enquired from the Court and came to know that he had proceeded ex-parte. THE plaintiff in reply to the application submitted no objection and he pleaded that the defendant could be permitted to set aside ex-parte proceeding. THE learned trial Court rejected the aforesaid application.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law in rejecting the application. Summons was not served on the petitioner, hence, ex-parte proceeding against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments: 1) (Ramhet and others v. Ajaypal Singh and others, 2003 1 MPLJ 215) 2) (Archana Kumar and another v. Bhanu Kumar Jain, 2003 3 MPLJ 141). 3) (Mukund Das and another v. State ofM. P. & Others, 1992 1 MPJR 28); 4) (R.R. Contractor and Co. v. Indranarayan Mishra,1982 JabLJ 40)