RADHEY SHYAM MEENA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil misc. appeal has been filed against the order dt. 24.08.2011, whereby the learned Additional District and Session Judge No. 4, Kota has dismissed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by the defendants -appellants (hereinafter 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dt. 04.01.2001, passed by the trial Court. The ex -parte decree was inter alia against the interest of the defendants -appellants for a sum of Rs. 1,67,685/ - along with interest @ 14% p.a. thereon from the date of the decree till the date of payment. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dt. 24.08.2011, passed by the trial Court. From the facts recorded in the impugned judgment, it is apparent that Ramgopal one of the original defendants in the plaintiff -respondent's (hereinafter 'the plaintiff) money suit was served by a registered notice and filed his appearance before the trial Court. In fact on 23.03.1999, 11.05.1999, 04.08.1999, 01.09.1999, 20.09.1999, 30.10.1999 and 30.11.1999, time was sought on his behalf to file written statement to the plaint. It is thus apparent that Ram Gopal was duly served. The defendants -appellants in this misc. appeal are none other than the sons/successors of Ramgopal. No sufficient cause within the scope of aforesaid application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for the defendants to be absent in the proceedings before the trial Court till the passing of the impugned judgment and decree dt. 04.01.2001 can be found. Processes of the Courts cannot be lightly and casually taken. And no litigant should be allowed to believe that the liberal approaches of Courts can be misused. In a suit, there are two or more contesting parties, and the right of one cannot be compromised or casually negated as in setting aside an ex -parte decree without "sufficient cause" on the mere askance of a party.

(2.) ASIDE of the aforesaid fact, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed on 04.02.2006 after a delay of over six years. Even though the delay was condoned it is indicative of the lack of bona fide of the defendants -appellants. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.