IQBAL NATH WADHAWAN Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Judge refusing to set aside the order vide which ex parte proceedings were taken against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner moved the trial Judge for recalling the order vide which ex parte proceedings were taken against him on the ground that he was served in the suit on October 13, 1984 through registered letter for October 19, 1984 but the registered letter did not contain a copy of the plaint. He was taken ill on October 25, 1984 due to hypertension with asthma and he was advised rest. He addressed a letter with a medical certificate appended to it to the trial Judge on October 25, 1984 to adjourn the case and inform the next date of hearing fixed in the case to him. He did not receive any summon or notice from the trial Court regarding the date fixed in the case. He came to attend hearing in a case pending in the Court of Mr. Bajaj on September 1, 1987 and by chance happened to visit the office of respondent No. 1 where he learnt that ex parte proceedings were taken against him in the suit on October 29, 1984. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the material produced before him came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not appear in the Court for more than three years after he was duly served in the lis. He further found that even if the story propounded by the petitioner is correct, he would not have taken three long years to make enquiries with regard to a suit pending against him. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Judge. This Court will be reluctant to interfere with a revision in favour of the party which is not vigilant in prosecuting his case. The conduct of the petitioner has not been fair. Assuming what he stated in the application was correct, he should not have waited for more than three years to move the Court for recalling the order vide which ex parte proceedings were ordered against him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice that the plaintiff has concluded his evidence. The defence of the guarantor will almost be pari materia with that of the principal debtor. The principal debtor and the guarantor are close relations. In view of these facts, it appears that the instant petition has been moved only to reopen the case.