AMAR SINGH SALAGRAM Vs. MANOHARLAL BADRILAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. M. Sanyal, counsel for the appellant. Mr. A. K. Sethi, counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. S. M. Jain for Respondent No. 2. Perused the record. As the short point is involved, with the consent of parties, this appeal is being decided finally.

(2.) MR. Sanyal, counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was prevented from attending the court when the suit was being finally decided. He submitted that on account of illness of the appellant, he was prevented from attending the court and unfortunately, the ex parte decree has been passed against him. Mr. Sethi, counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 countering this submission, submitted that the trial Court has considered this aspect in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14. He pointed out that on 23-2-1993, it was ordered that the suit was to be heard against the appellant ex parte. He further submitted that appellant gave false information for the purpose of explaining his absence and, therefore, the court was right in passing the ex parte decree against him.

(3.) MR. Sanyal further pointed out that the court initially fixed a date for hearing the interim applications and thereafter without giving opportunity to the appellant the suit was fixed for final hearing ex parte against the present appellant. Mr. Sethi opposed this argument.