RAJINDER SINGH Vs. JASVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision petition arising out of an order refusing to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree of injunction passed against the Petitioner.

(2.) THE counsel for the Petitioner contends that a suit for permanent injunction brought by Respondent No 1 in which his application for temporary injunction was declined by the trial Court. The order was challenged in appeal which was allowed on May 4, 1984 and the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for further proceedings on merits on May 21, 1984. Since the records were not received from the Additional District Judge, the case was adjourned from time to time and finally on July 16, 1984, on receipt of the record, the trial Court order issuing of notice to the parties. The Petitioner appeared through an advocate Mr. H R. Agnihotri. The case was adjourned from time to time for filing of their written statement. Finally on January 3, 1985, when the case was fixed for filing the written statement, neither the Petitioner nor his counsel appeared. Written statement was filed by Defendant No. 2 and the case was adjourned for filing the replication. On January 15, 1985, when again neither the Petitioner nor his counsel appeared, the Petitioner was proceeded ex parte, However, in view of Defendant No. 2 having admitted the claim, no issues were framed Further the statement of the Plaintiff was recorded on oath. Thus an ex parte decree dated February 22, 1985, was passed.

(3.) THE trial Court found that the Petitioner was duly represented by Mr. H. R. Agnihotri, Advocate, during the proceedings and subsequently he chose to absent from the proceedings. It was farther observed that it is not the case of the Petitioner that he absented due to some circumstances beyond his control. It was observed that zimni order belie the evidence produced by the Petitioner that he had no information with respect to the date as Mr. Agnihotri was his counsel who had been appearing for him in the proceedings. Thus, finding no sufficient canto for setting aside the ex parte judgment, the application was dismissed