KARNAIL SINGH Vs. NAZAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6.8.2008 in respect of land measuring 2 Kanal 8 Marlas is pending adjudication before the civil court at Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit. He was proceeded against ex-parte on 3.3.2014 when neither he nor his counsel appeared even despite wait by the court for the whole day. An application to set aside ex-parte proceedings was moved by the petitioner-defendant on 16.4.2014. When this application was fixed for consideration, on 9.5.2014 again the petitioner-defendant played truant with the court and was proceeded against ex-parte resulting in dismissal of his application for nonprosecution.

(2.) When the matter was fixed for ex-parte arguments of the plaintiff, now respondent herein on 5.7.2014, again the petitioner-defendant made appearance through his counsel and moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order of 9.5.2014 passed against him. This application was contested by the opposite party. It was dismissed vide order dated 11.8.2014. Orders dated 3.3.2014 when he was proceeded against ex-parte and 9.5.2014 where the petitioner-defendant remained absent resulting in dismissal of his application for setting aside ex-parte order of 3.3.2014 for non-prosecution vide which his fresh application for setting aside ex-parte order of 3.3.2014 was dismissed on merits have been impugned in this petition. It is claimed that the petitioner was busy in harvesting of crops and thus, neither could inform his counsel nor could appear himself. It is claimed that since absence of the petitioner-defendant was neither malafide nor intentional, the petitioner-defendant neither was to be proceeded against ex-parte on 3.3.2014 nor on 9.5.2014 nor his application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was to be dismissed vide impugned order of 11.8.2014 (Annexure P1). Support has been sought from G.P. Sarivastava Versus R.K. Raizada and others, 2000 1 RCR(Rent) 238.

(3.) In the present case, circumstances are entirely different. In the cited authority, the defendant was not well and had sent a certificate of illness from a private doctor which was not believed. Hon ble Apex Court had held that ex-parte order could not have been passed only on the ground that certificate was given by a private doctor. In the present case, neither absence of the petitioner-defendant is bonafide nor honest. It is not the question of negligence either. It is a case where the petitioner-defendant has no respect for the orders of the courts and had been playing truant under well contrived design to dilate and delay the conclusion of proceedings of the suit against him which is pending since 21.4.2009.