DAYA NAND Vs. SARISHTI PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 09.10.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial Court whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for setting aside the ex parte decree/order dated 15.11.2010 was dismissed and also the order dated 23.09.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed in appeal against the aforesaid order.

(2.) The respondent filed a suit in the trial Court for specific performance of agreement to sell. The facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the petitioner was served in the suit for 10.8.2010 but for his non-presence, he was proceeded against ex parte. The ex parte proceedings against him were set aside on 1.9.2010.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the suit was pending for 15.11.2010 when he had appeared before the trial Court alongwith his counsel but the plaintiff was absent. The petitioner was informed by the trial Court, that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff has been dismissed in default. The petitioner requested his counsel to apply for copy of the said order. The petitioner, however, learnt later on that the suit was still pending and fixed for ex parte evidence. The petitioner applied to the trial Court under Order IX Rule 13 CPC but trial Court without appreciating the facts of the case dismissed his application.