DILIP KUMAR Vs. BAJRANG LAL BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this Civil Writ Petition aggrieved by order dtd. 4/9/2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu (Raj.), whereby, application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that ex-parte proceedings took place because of absence of advocate. Advocate did not inform the petitioner about ex-parte proceedings and it is only when the ex-parte decree order was passed on 22/3/2018 and notice thereof was given by the respondent, that petitioner came to know about the passing of the decree order. Petitioner, thereafter, moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. for setting-aside the ex-parte decree order, which application was dismissed by the Court on 4/9/2018, aggrieved by which, present Civil Writ Petition has been filed. It is also contended that if lapses are on part of the advocate, client cannot be made to suffer.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "The Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr. vs. Raghu Raj (Civil Appeal No.6142/2008 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1583/2007)."