J D KAPOOR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 23.2.1983 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat, and the order dated 30.7.1983 passed by the District Judge, Sonepat, vide which the application filed by the defendant-appellant as for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 22.7.1978 passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, was dismissed.

(2.) No one has come out in appearance on behalf of the parties. I have perused the file of the case.

(3.) It has come on record that Shri Kundan Lal, counsel for the defendant-appellants in the trial Court, had appeared on 17.8.1977. Thereafter, none appeared on their behalf on 26.8.1977, 8.9.1977 and 7.10.1977. On 7.10.1977 all the three defendants were proceeded against ex parte. The ex parte decree was finally passed on 22.7.1978, i.e. after about 9-1/2 months. The plea taken by the appellants is that their counsel in the trial Court, namely, Shri Kundan Lal, Advocate, had advised J.D. Kapur, defendant No. 2, that as defendant No. 3 had filed application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, he i.e. Shri Kundan Lal, Advocate, need not appear. However, when Shri Kundan Lal, Advocate, appeared in the witness-box, he stated that he had advised Mr. J.D. Kapur, defendant No. 2, to make his own arrangement as he being the counsel from Delhi, it would not be possible for him to appear in the ex parte proceedings. It has come on record that after the defendants were proceeded against ex parte on 7.10.1977, no one had put in appearance on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Finally, the ex parte decree was passed on 22.7.1978. The appellants have failed to give satisfactory explanation for their non-appearance for almost 9-1/2 months. Mr. Kundan Lal, Advocate, has stated on oath that he had advised his clients to make their own arrangement for appearance in the ex parte proceedings as it was not possible for him to appear on each and every date, he being a counsel from New Delhi.