Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagannath (Deceased) Th:Lrs.,Smt. ... vs Kaushal Prasad, (Deceased)Th:Lrs ... on 13 May, 2013
Civil Revision No. 197/2013
(Jagannath (dead) through L.Rs. Smt. Jaymanti and others Vs.
Kaushal Prasad (dead) through L.Rs. Jagmohan and others)
13.05.2013
Heard Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicants.
This civil revision has been filed by the applicants being
aggrieved by order dated 23.01.2013 passed in MJC No. 71/03
filed on 23.06.1997 by the respondents under order 9 rule 13 of
the C.P.C. thereby setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 16.04.1996.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the court below has wrongly allowed the application filed by the respondents for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 16.04.1996 without looking into the fact that the respondents did not take any steps in the matter within reasonable period of time and in such circumstances, the reason for condoning the delay and for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree is patently illegal and suffers from manifest irregularity.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants it is observed that the exparte judgment and decree was passed against the respondents by the court below on 16.04.1996 in Civil Suit No. 660-A/86. From a perusal of the documents it is clear that the respondents had engaged one Shri S.D. Dwivedi, Advocate who did not appear for the respondents after 05.03.1993 as a result of which the exparte proceedings were taken up and judgment and decree dated 16.04.1996 was passed against the respondents. The court below has also taken into consideration the fact that the respondents had stated in the application that they did not come to know about the proceedings on account of the fact that the counsel did not inform them and it was only in June, 1997 when they approached their counsel that they came to know about the exparte judgment and decree and thereafter they immediately filed an application for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree in June, 1997.
The court below has taken note of the fact that the assertions made by the respondents were not denied by the applicants except for stating that they were negligent in enquiring about the case and left it to their counsel. The court below after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects as well as the decisions of this court rendered in the case of Smt. Jahoorbi Vs. Altab Husain 2003(11) MPWN (06), Banwari Lal Vs. Narayan Singh 2001(1) MPWN 23 and Maksoodan Vs. Chanderlal and others 2000(4) MPHT 369 wherein it has been laid down that the parties should not be made to suffer on account of the default on the part of the counsel and that the applications for condonation of delay should be leniently considered, has allowed the application and set aside the exparte judgment and decree.
I find no illegality or manifest irregularity in the order passed by the court below warranting interference by this court. The civil revision being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
(R.S. Jha) Judge msp