DHOOM SINGH Vs. VED RAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is decided finally at the admission stage. The present appeal arises out of the judgment & order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Tijara, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Misc. Application No. 66/08, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application of the appellant -defendant under Order IX Rule 13 for setting aside the judgment & decree dated 14.11.2007 passed in the Civil Suit No. 75/07(106/2006).

(2.) IT appears that the present respondents -plaintiffs had filed the suit against the appellant defendant seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 18.08.2004. According to respondents -plaintiffs, though the summons were duly served on the appellant -defendant, he did not appear in the suit, and therefore the Court had passed the order on 12.09.2006 for proceeding ex -parte against the defendant The trial Court, thereafter on the basis of the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs, decreed the suit ex -parte against the appellant -defendant as per the judgment & decree dated 14.11.2007. The appellant defendant, thereafter submitted an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, praying to set aside the said decree on the ground that the summons were never served to him and he came to know about the ex -parte decree only when the notice was issued by the executing Court under Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC. The trial Court dismissed the said application of the appellant -defendant vide the order dated 11.09.2009. Hence the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel Mr. R.K. Mathur Senior Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that though the appellant was duly served in the suit, he chose to remain absent through out the proceedings, and therefore the trial Court had no alternative but to decree the suit, relying upon the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs, which had remained unchallenged. Pressing into service, the provisions contained in Order IX Rule 13, Mr. Mathur has submitted that since the summons were duly served, and since no other ground was made out by the appellant to set aside the decree, which was legally passed against the appellant, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Order IX Rule 13, and this Court should not interfere with the said order.