MURARI LAL SABA Vs. RAJKUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody appears for the respondent. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant -defendant under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC, challenging the order dated 07.08.2007 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Misc. Application No. 60/06, whereby the trial court has dismissed the said application of the appellant filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting -aside the ex -parte decree dated 14.02.2005 passed in the Civil Suit being No. 56/2003.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Anil Upman for the appellant that the trial court before passing the decree had not given sufficient opportunity to the appellant -defendant to lead his evidence and had proceeded ex -parte after the examination of the appellant and filing of the affidavit by his witness. According to him, the trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the said decree should have been set -aside in the interest of Justice. The Court does not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. As transpiring from the impugned order itself, the appellant -defendant was granted sufficient opportunity to lead his evidence and he had also examined himself and also filed the affidavit of his witness. It also appears that the trial court had twice imposed the cost on the appellant for not proceeding with the case. The learned counsel has also failed to point out any sufficient cause which had prevented the appellant from proceeding further with the suit. Thus, if the trial court had passed the decree after appreciating the evidence, it could not be said that the decree was passed ex -parte against the appellant. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, which has dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Order IX Rule 13. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.