HARSH MAHAJAN Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties Facts which are not in dispute between the parties to the present case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for the recovery of certain amount. This suit was being earlier tried by the Senior Sub -Judge, Shimla before whom the defendant was represented by his counsel. The case was fixed on 7 -12 -1994 for evidence of the plaintiff. However, when it was called out, the defendants counsel was not present, therefore, it appears that he was proceeded against exparte. After ordering exparte proceedings against the defendant, the trial Court recorded the evidence of the plaintiff on IS -12 -1994 itself and reserved the case for judgment.

(2.) It appears that the learned Counsel for the defendant who was absent when the case was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against the defendant and when he came to know that his client has been proceeded against ex parte. moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings at 1.30 p, m. on 7 -12 -1994.

(3.) This application has been seriously contested and resisted on behalf of the plaintiff and amongst other things, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that after the recording of evidence and hearing arguments, only judgment remained to be pronounced. So, there was no hearing as such left out and accordingly the application was liable to be dismissed.