RAM KUMAR Vs. MAYA DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff/Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Mansa vide which the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by the defendants for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 05.11.2015 was allowed and the suit was restored to its original number subject to payment of costs of Rs.6,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff/petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the defendants were served through substituted mode of service. They were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.10.2013 and the plaintiff was asked to lead ex parte evidence on 17.12.2013. The ex parte evidence of the plaintiff was closed and the case was fixed for arguments for 27.05.2014 vide order dated 23.05.2014. On the date fixed i.e. 27.05.2014, Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of te defendants and an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 30.10.2013 was filed. Notice of the application was issued to the plaintiff.

(3.) Learned counsel further submitted that in due course, learned counsel for the plaintiff made a statement showing no objection against setting aside of ex parte evidence against the defendants subject to payment of costs. In view of statement made by learned counsel for the plaintiff, ex parte evidence led by the plaintiff was set aside subject to payment of costs and the case was adjourned for filing written statement and for making payment of costs. Written statement was not filed and last opportunity was granted vide order dated 15.04.2015. The case was adjourned for 05.05.2015. On 05.05.2015, again written statement was not filed, nor the amount of costs was paid. Last opportunity was granted to the defendant to file written statement on 15.05.2015, still written statement was not filed.