HABIB AHMED Vs. GULAB DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the order dated 3rd Jan. , 1993. Perused the record of the trial court by which application of the appellant under order 9 rule 13 CPC was dismissed by the trial court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently assailed the order dated 3rd Jan. , 1993 passed by the trial court by which the above application under order 9 rule 13 CPC was dismissed. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant engaged the advocate and paid his fees, but even then the advocate of the appellant did not appear before the trial court and the suit was decreed by the trial court. Even after the decree Sh. Bhanwar Singh Soni, Advocate did not inform the fate of the suit to the appellant and the appellant came to know about the decree dated 7th Nov. , 1992 only on 21st Jan. , 1993 when the sale Amin came on spot to take possession of the disputed property. Upon above information through sale Amin the appellant went to his advocate on the same day but his advocate was not available on 21st Jan. , 1993 and, therefore, the appellant could meet his advocate only on 22nd Jan. , 1993. Hence, appellant has no knowledge of the decree dated 7th Nov. , 1992 till 21st Jan. , 1993.

(3.) IN view of the above facts the trial court rejected the application of the applicant-appellants.