POORNMAL AND OTHERS Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This civil misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) C.P.C. has been preferred by appellants-defendants against the order of learned Addl. District Judge, Bandikui passed on 17.5.2001 rejecting their application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal and necessary for its disposal are that respondents instituted a civil suit for specific performance of agreement for sale executed between the parties on 22.7.1997 in respect of the property described in para 2 of the plaint alleging that appellants had failed to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour despite repeated requests and service of legal notice upon him through their advocate. After service of summons on them, appellants-defendants engaged Shri Sudesh Chandra Gupta, Advocate to defend the suit who put in appearance before the trial Court on 18.12.1999 and also filed power on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and undertook to file power on behalf of defendant No. 1. But power was not filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 even after taking several opportunities for the same. He ultimately pleaded no instructions on 4.7.2000 whereupon the trial Court directed ex parte proceedings to be taken against them. After recording the evidence of plaintiffs the trial Court decreed the suit ex parte on 11.9.2000. The appellants moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them. The application was ultimately dismissed vide impugned order which order is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as also the record of the case.