DEEPAK Vs. MAHENDER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,80,000/-against the defendant-petitioner. After issuance of notice, when no one had put in appearance on behalf of the defendant, the trial Court, vide order dated 26.9.2008, directed exparte proceedings against him. The defendant then filed an application for setting aside the exparte order dated 26.9.2008. After hearing arguments from both the sides, the trial Court, vide order dated 7.6.2011, held that the exparte order had rightly been passed. It was also held that as the application had been filed on 1.8.2009 i.e. after a period of about 11 months from the date of passing of the exparte order and, therefore, it was hopelessly time barred.

(2.) Accordingly, finding no substance in the application, the same was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 7.6.2011. The said order has been challenged by the defendant by filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The revision came up for preliminary hearing on 19.10.2009 when notice of motion was issued for 3.2.2012 and the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed, in the meanwhile. For 3.2.2012, the office reported that the plaintiff-respondent stood served through his wife.