SMT. SUNITA AND ANOTHER Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 2.3.2004 whereby an application filed by the defendants for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 15.11.2000 was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioners who were the defendants in the civil suit were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.11.2000. An application was filed by them for setting aside the ex-parte order on 16.10.2001. In that application, the petitioners had contended that in fact they had wrongly ascertained the date on the basis of information supplied to them by the counsel for the respondents, plaintiffs in the civil suit. However, on 1.12.2003 they withdrew the said application. On that very day another application was filed for setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings. This application was filed after the petitioners changed their counsel. In this application, allegations were made against their erstwhile counsel and it was pleaded that he had intimated them wrong dates, as a result of which they could not put in appearance and were proceeded against ex-parte. The trial Court examined the matter and dismissed the application on the ground that there was a totally contradictory stand taken in the two applications. While in the first application, as already noticed above, the petitioners had blamed the counsel for the respondent, in the second application, they were blaming their own counsel.

(3.) The only contention raised before me at the time of hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners were actually intimated wrong dates. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has raised two fold contention. He contends that it is not possible to believe the story put forward by the petitioners. They are recklessly blaming first one counsel then the other. They were quite aware of the proceedings in the suit and now having been proceeded against ex-parte, have moved an application without any justifiable cause. Still further he contends that once the application made by the petitioners has been dismissed as withdrawn on 1. 12.2003 without there being any permission to file a fresh application, the second application would not be maintainable.