(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellants/defendants against the order of the trial Court dt. 7.2.1987, whereby the trial Court refused to set aside the ex -parte decree passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. On 17.6.1985, the case was fixed for filing written statement and in the absence of the appellants and their counsel the Court proceeded ex parte and the ex -parte decree was passed against the appellant/defendants. An application was moved for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the appellants.
(2.) . The application for setting aside ex -parte decree gave the reasons that the papers were at Jabalpur and, the papers were concerning the Griha Nirman Mandal Yojana at Balaghat and, therefore, they required time to search out those papers. It is further alleged that their counsel was busy elsewhere on 17.6.1985; the Asstt. Engineer posted at Balaghat was on tour; therefore, he could not attend the Court on 17.6.1985; and the Court proceeded ex -parte and, the ex -parte decree was passed against the appellants/defendants on 21.6.1985. The appellants stated that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for their non -appearance on 17.6.1985 and to get the ex -parte decree set aside.
(3.) . Held: The appellants/defendants examined Chinch -olikar, Asstt. Engineer, and in his evidence he stated that the relevant papers were at Jabalpur Office and in spite of the request made by him the papers could not be traced and he could not get them. On 17.6.1985, he went to Divisional Office Jabalpur and came to know that ex -parte decree was passed against the appellants/defendants and, therefore, an application for setting aside the ex -parte decree was moved on 16.7.85. He further · stated that although he took the charge of Balaghat works in August, 1984 but he does not remember that on 7.12.84 he received any instruction to look after the case; he also does not remember as to when he received the summons; till the date of evidence he had not received any instructions from the Head Office Bhopal about the case. He does not know why defendants 1 to 3 were absent. He stated that he has come with records but does not know as to when the instructions were given to the counsel to appear in the matter. He failed to narrate in which Court counsel was busy when the case was called for hearing. The statement of this witness thus shows callous negligence on the part of the appellants to take part in the 'proceeding. It is settled law that although the parties should be given opportunity to contest the matter on merits but it must show that the parties had taken due care to appear in the matter and to contest it. 4. The ex - parle decree will not be set aside as matter of right and can only be set aside on sufficient cause shown for non -appearance of the party on the particular date on which the case was fixed. Evidence on behalf of the appellants does not show that due care was taken for appearance in the Court on the date case was fixed for filing written statement. The negligence is writ large on the face of it. Under the circumstances, the order of the trial Court; whereby he has refused to set aside the ex -parte decree, does not require any interference by this Court.