RAJESH KUMAR Vs. VANDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the trial Court on 07.11.2019 whereby the application preferred by the respondent/defendant under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC has been allowed while the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner, who is appearing in person, contends that the respondent was intentionally not putting in appearance before the trial Court and was trying to delay the proceedings. She had also not filed the written statement within the stipulated period of 120 days and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He also contends that the ex parte evidence had also been tendered by him and, therefore, the matter was at the stage of arguments and hence at that stage, the application of the respondent for setting aside the ex parte order should not have been allowed. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. vs. K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others, (2019) 2 RCR (Civil) 249.

(3.) Heard.