RAM NARAYAN SAINI Vs. RAJ KUMAR PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil misc. appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.01.2003, whereby the learned Additional District and Session Judge No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur has dismissed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant-appellant (hereinafter 'the defendant') against the ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.04.1997, passed by the trial court in a money suit of INR 43,028.00 filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter 'the plaintiff').

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 31.01.2003, passed by the trial court.

(3.) From the facts recorded in the impugned order, it is apparent that the defendant filed his written statement to the money suit of the plaintiff on 26.03.1992. Thereafter issues were framed on 02.12.1999 by the trial court. After framing of the issues, statement of the plaintiff as PW-1 was recorded. Thereafter, the defendant's evidence was recorded on 06.10.1993 and on the same date his evidence was closed. The matter was fixed for final hearing on 13.10.1993. Thereafter on 25.10.1993, 04.11.1993, 16.11.1993 and 04.12.1993 the matter was kept for final hearing. In the meanwhile an application under Order 18 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure was filed which was dismissed on 22.03.1994. Thereafter the plaintiff's counsel filed another application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. The defendant sought time to file reply to the said application on eight occasions last of which was on 02.06.1995. On 02.06.1995 the matter was fixed for 27.05.1995. On 27.05.1995 the trial court ordered for ex-parte proceedings against the defendant because of his absence. The application under Order 13 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure appears to have been allowed. Thereafter the trial court recorded the evidence of PW-2 Mahaveer Singh with reference to the document taken on record under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. On 01.04.1997 the court below passed the ex-parte decree. In the passing of the decree, the trial court has considered the defence evidence already on record before the defendant and his counsel without good reason absented themselves.