HARI RAM KEER Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against order dated 18th August, 1998 passed by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in M. J. C. No. 5/97, whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 1-7-1995, has been rejected.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to burden the case with the facts giving rise to the judgment and decree in favour of State Bank of India, except that in Civil Suit No. 96-B/94, the present appellant (defendant therein) was served with summons who participated in the proceedings of the Civil Suit through an Advocate duly engaged by him. He, however, stopped taking part in the proceedings and remained absent. Consequently, an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed against him on 1st July, 1995.

(3.) THE appellant submitted an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside judgment and decree on the ground that he had become "sadhu" in February, 1988 and had proceeded on pilgrimage. He came back in September, 1992 and again proceeded for religious purposes on 13-10-1992. In February, 1995 he came back. Since, he had become physically quite weak, his Counsel had assured him that he will take care of the litigation. So, he had proceeded on pilgrimage. It was further stated in the application that the plaint was also amended after drawal of ex-parte proceedings and no notice of amended averments was given to the defendant/appellant. Defendant prayed that the ex-parte order dated 13-3-1991 may be set aside and the civil suit be restored to the position as on 3-10-1988.