BALKAR SINGH Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset, the present revision petition is treated to be a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE defendants are the petitioners before this Court.

(3.) AN application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed plaintiffs on July 16, 1985. It may be noticed here that with effect from June 15, 1985 the Civil Courts were closed on account of summer vacations. Thus, the application in question was filed on the very opening day after the summer vacations. In the application, the defendants took up the plea that they had wrongly noted the date as June 24, 1985 and as such could not appear nor produce their evidence on May 24, 1985, which in fact was the date fixed for leading the evidence by the defendants. Counsel appearing for the defendants also took up a similar plea. It was additionally pleaded by the defendants in the application that their counsel told them that he was busy in the Court of Sessions on May 24, 1985 and, therefore, later on, he came to know that an ex parte decree had already been passed. This application filed by the defendants was contested by the plaintiffs. Various pleas were raised by way of contest. A plea of limitation was also raised.