SATINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 115 C. P. C. , the following facts are not in dispute.

(2.) ON a suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, the defendant respondent was served with a notice to put in appearance in Court on September 4, 1985ard it having failed to do that, was proceeded against ex-parte. The suit, however, was adjourned to 27th September, 1980 for evidence of the petitioner. The Court after recording the ex-parte evidence on 27tb September, 198. ") and 5th November, )985, adjourned it for hearing the arguments on 9th November, 1985. Having heard the arguments on that date, the case was fixed for 28th November, 1985 for orders, Since the presiding officer remained on leave for a pretty long time, the suit was ultimately decreed on 5th September, 1986.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the above noted proceedings, the respondent filed an application under Order 9, Rule 7, C. P. C. on 13th March, 1986 for setting aside the ex parte proceedings taken against it inter alia pleading therein that the absence of the respondent m these proceedings was neither mala fide or intentional, nor deliberate but was on account of procedural wrangles which had to be gone through in the different sections of the Department for putting in proper representation on behalf of the State Government. The petitioner, while contesting the various assertions made on behalf of the respondent, raised the plea that not only ex-parte judgment and decree had by then been passed against the respondent but the very application under Order 9, Rule 7 was not maintainable as on the date it was filed, i. e. , 13th March, 1986 or on any subsequent date no hearing in the suit was to take place and the case was only fixed for orders or pronouncement of the judgment The lower Court has disposed of the matter vide its impugned order in the following manner :