DEBASMITA MOHANTY Vs. RANJITA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the 1st Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in CMA No.25/14 of 2006/2005 arising out of Money Suit No.160 of 1999 is assailed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the said case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was decreed ex parte on 25.4.2005. It is submitted that the defendants after receiving notice did not file any written statement for which they were set ex parte on 07.10.2004. The said order was never challenged. As the defendants did not appear the trial Court proceeded and an ex parte decree was passed on 25.4.2005 Thereafter a petition was filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. praying to set aside the ex parte decree. The said petition was registered as Misc. Case No.25/2006/14/2005 arising out of Money Suit No.160 of 1999. In course of hearing of the said Misc. Case, a petition was filed by the plaintiff with a prayer not to record of any evidence mainly on the grounds that the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. was a vague one, no facts having been pleaded and as no reasons were assigned with regard to non -appearance, and as such no evidence was needed to be recorded. The said petition has been rejected by the trial Court.

(3.) IT is submitted that the matter was posted for recording of evidence and due to pendency of this Writ Petition that has not been done. I therefore direct the Court below to commence recording of the evidence next week or on any other date convenient to it. Petition disposed of.