LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-137

ROHIT BADU Vs. RADHABALLAV SINGH AND EIGHT ORS.

Decided On August 08, 2008
Rohit Badu Appellant
V/S
Radhaballav Singh And Eight Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.03.2007 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6743 of 2005 by which the order allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code of Civil Procedure ') by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has been set aside.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that a Title Suit No. 212 of 1994 was filed by the Respondent No. 1. The Appellant was Defendant No. 3 in that suit. The summons were issued to all the Defendants to appear on 27.9.1996. The Appellant did not enter appearance in the case, rather asked other Defendants who had already entered appearance, to look after his interest also. Subsequently as they did not take proper care of his interest, the order was passed to proceed ex -parte against him.

(3.) Appellant filed an application to set aside the ex -parte order and the trial Court vide order dated 15.9.1997 recalled the order, thus set aside the ex -parte order. The Appellant filed a written statement but did not pursue/contest the matter further and therefore, again he was set ex parte for the second time. The matter was listed for hearing ex parte on 25th June, 1999. Subsequent thereto the case was adjourned to several dates from time to time and finally on 30.07.1999 the Plaintiffs argument stood closed. Case was directed to be listed on 8.8.1999 for delivery of Judgment. The Judgment was delivered on the said date by the trial Court. On 6.8.2003, i.e. after expiry of four years, Appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to set aside the ex parte Judgment and decree. The said application was allowed vide order dated 4.5.2005. Being aggrieved, the said order was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 by filing W.P.(C) No. 6743 of 2005 which has been allowed vide Judgment and order dated 6.3.2007. Hence this appeal.