BAL KISHAN Vs. DULLA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 17003-CII of 2013 Allowed as prayed for. MAIN CASE Defendants have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC), assailing judgment dated 06.09.2011 passed by the trial Court and judgment dated 25.05.2013 passed by the lower appellate Court thereby dismissing defendants application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.02.2010.

(2.) The defendants alleged that they had engaged counsel to defend the suit. The counsel told that presence of defendants was not required on each and every date of hearing and he would tell them whenever their presence would be required. However, mobile telephone of husband of defendant no.3 was lost and, therefore, there was no contact between the defendants and their counsel. The defendants also went to Madhya Pradesh to cultivate land there. Therefore, they were not in contact with their counsel. They learnt of the decree on 24.08.2010 only when their relative from the native village told them about warrant of possession.

(3.) Respondent-plaintiff denied the averments made in the application and pleaded that the defendants were proceeded against ex parte at the stage of final arguments in the suit. Defendants had availed of several opportunities for their evidence including two last opportunities with costs but defendants neither paid costs nor led any evidence.