DIPO Vs. KULWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order of the trial Court dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioners for setting aside the order of ex parte proceedings against them. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on 3rd December, 1976 the defendants did not put in appearance in spite of service of summonses on them. Hence the order to proceed ex parte was passed against them. Their application to set aside the order was allowed by the trial Court on the condition that they would pay Rs. 10/- as costs. On the adjourned date, i.e., 3rd February, 1977, none of the defendants either appeared or arranged to pay the costs above-said. Hence the trial Court again proceeded ex parte against them and fixed 15th March, 1977 for the evidence of the plaintiffs. The second application of the defendants for setting aside the ex parte proceedings has been dismissed by the trial Court. The reasons given in support of the impugned order are not easily assailable. The contention of the learned counsel that the three defendants are illiterate women and, therefore, they were unable to appear on 3rd February, 1977 and pay costs, has not impressed by because they had engaged a lawyer to defend them.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to Arjan Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 993 At page 1002 of the report their Lordships observed :-

(3.) The parties are left to bear their own costs and are directed to appear in the trial Court on 3rd June, 1977.