NAN BAI SAHU Vs. MAN MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case is listed for final disposal at motion stage. Arguments heard.

(2.) This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the order dated 28/08/2009 passed in unregistered MJC by which application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 18.07.2007 has been dismissed by the learned lower appellate court.

(3.) Appellants had filed an application before the trial court on the ground that they do not have knowledge of ex-parte judgment and decree dated 18.7.2007 passed against them. The respondents in their written reply before the trial court have submitted that the appellants were having full knowledge of the case and the case was fixed for evidence. Learned trial court has rejected the application by holding that appellant Ashok Kumar Pandey and his counsel Shri Mahendra Singh Thakur, are resident of Panagar and they usually meet each other and the counsel Shri Mahendra Singh Thakur has admitted that he had personally told the son of Ashok Kumar Pandey on 15.3.2007 and 16.3.2007 about the date fixed in the case for evidence but they did not make any contact with the counsel. This fact has also been considered by the learned trial court that after intimation given by the counsel that the appellant should have met him before 19.03.2007 but they did not meet him nor make contact with the counsel. Learned trial court has disbelieved the reasons assigned for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.