SPORT KING INDIA LTD Vs. DALBEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 10.09.2013 [Annexure P/1] and dated 18.12.2013 [Annexure P/3] whereby the petitioner-defendant was proceeded against ex parte and application for setting aside ex-parte order was also dismissed despite the fact that the case was at the stage of Plaintiff's evidence and the petitioner has not been afforded proper opportunity to lead its evidence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitionerdefendant appeared and filed the written statement inter alia taking objections with regard to maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction against Co-sharer. It was also pleaded that the petitioner had purchased the land and the same was in his possession through registered sale deed. The respondent took several adjournments to lead evidence, but no evidence was led. Finally on 27.5.2013, evidence by way of affidavit of one PW was tendered. On the next date, no plaintiff witness was present. Despite several adjournments, the plaintiff failed to conclude his evidence and on 10.9.2013, the petitioner was not present and order was passed against the petitioner thereby initiating ex parte proceedings against it. On the very next day, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. On 18.12.2013, the Clerk of counsel for the petitioner was intimated that the case stood adjourned to 10.1.2014. On 10.1.2014, when the petitioner appeared in the case, he was informed that the said application has already been dismissed on the last date on account of non-appearance of the petitioner on 18.12.2013. The petitioner prayed that the said orders be set-aside as there was no reason for the petitioner not to appear before the Court either on 10.9.2013 or on 18.12.2013. Rather, the petitioner had put in appearance through Clerk of his counsel on 18.12.2013 and came to know that the case stood posted for 10.1.2014.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court has rightly dismissed the application as the petitioner was not present on the first date when ex parte proceedings were initiated and subsequently, on 18.12.2013 when the application for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed. The present petition be dismissed. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the conduct of the petitioner is not upto the mark right from the very beginning because on 10.9.2013, the petitioner-defendant failed to put in appearance despite the fact that the counsel for the plaintiff was present and on that date, the Court below had passed the following order:-