DIRECTOR OF ESTATES, JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT Vs. KISHORE CHANDRA RAY SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 2.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.M.A. No. 388 of 2006 arising out of T.S. No. 428 of 1999. Though this is a Single Judge matter, while hearing W.P.(C) No.24284 of 2011, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the State that result of this writ application shall have a bearing on the result of above writ application. Therefore, we called for the records and heard both the writ applications together.

(2.) AS is evident from the dates, even though the petitioner and the other Government Officials, namely, defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 in the suit had been set ex parte on 18.2.2000, no steps whatsoever were taken by anyone of them to get the said order set aside till the ex parte judgment was delivered on 13.7.2001, almost one and half years thereafter. The order sheet also shows that the case was taken up on several dates in between but no steps were taken on behalf of the petitioner and the other defendants. Even after the ex parte judgment was delivered on 13.7.2001, application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed on 1.2.2003. Thus, there was long delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. The petitioner therefore filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay. The said application having been rejected in the impugned order, this writ application has been filed.

(3.) ON perusal of the order sheet, we find that on 18.2.2000, even though defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 including the petitioner had been set ex parte, no steps had been taken by the Government Pleader thereafter to get the said order set aside. No written statement was also filed on behalf of the said defendants and ultimately an ex parte judgment was delivered on 13.7.2001. Even after the ex parte judgment and decree were delivered on 13.7.2001, no steps were taken by the petitioner and other defendants and only on 1.2.2003, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The conduct of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioner and other Government Officials clearly shows that after 18.2.2000, no steps had been taken and they were utterly negligent in contesting the suit. The petition under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed on 1.2.2003 and other application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of around eighteen months was filed on the following ground. The ground taken in the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking for condonation of delay is quoted below.