Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Respondent filed OS No. 87 of 1990 against the appellant as 4th defendant and three others including the State of Andhra Pradesh as defendants 1 to 3, for recovery of Rs. 1,98,774/-. Appellant put in appearance through one Mr. D. Jayaprada Rao, advocate in the said suit. Since he did not file his written statement for number of adjournments, he (appellant) was set ex parte on 3-12-1990. He filed IA No. 59 of 1991 under Rule 7 of Order IX CPC to set aside the ex parte order against him. Though the said petition was allowed, and the order setting him ex parte was set aside and several adjournments were granted to file his written statement, since he did not choose to file his written statement till 13-12-1991 and did not even pay the costs imposed against him, and since he was also not present and since the other defendants in the suit had filed their written statements, the Court below posted the suit to 16-12-1991 from 13-12-1991 for framing of issues without formally passing an order setting the appellant ex parte. After framing issues, trial of the suit was taken up. By the judgment dated 27-11-1996 the trial Court while dismissing the suit against defendants 1 to 3, decreed the suit against the appellant for the amount claimed in the suit.

2. Alleging that only because his Advocate Mr. Jayaprada Rao informed him that he need not attend Court and that whenever his presence is required he would post a letter, and till he receives a letter from him (the advocate), he (appellant) need not even attend the Court, and since he did not receive any letter from Mr. Jayaprada Rao, he did not attend the hearings of the case and was away in Karnataka State executing contracts and that only after coming to know that Court officials caused a tom-tom in the village regarding attachment of his properties only did he go Court to make enquiries and came to know that Mr. Jayaprada Rao, advocate had passed away, and that the suit was decreed ex parte against him, appellant filed IA No. 374 of 1997 to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him.

10. The suit in this case was filed in 1990. Appellant put in appearance through Mr. Jayaprada Rao, advocate was set ex parte on 3-12-1990, because he did not file his written statement or pay costs ordered to the other side. On his filing IA No. 59 of 1991 to set aside the said ex parte order, the order setting him ex parte was set aside on 12-8-1991. Even then he did not file his written statement till 13-12-1991.

Would not the appellant, who is a contractor and against whom a claim for nearly two lakhs is made, know that he has to file his written statement contesting the suit, if really he has good defence in the suit? It is difficult to believe that appellant, who has been looking after his other affairs effectively became a Rip Van Winkle only in respect of the suit filed against him in 1990 for recovery of two lakh rupees. Appellant, when he filed IA No. 59 of 1991 to set aside the ex pane order against him, like an ordinary prudent litigant should have enquired from Mr. Jayaprada Rao, who allegedly instructed him not to bother till he receives a letter from him, as to why he did not write to him to come to give instructions for drafting written statement and allowed an ex parte order being passed against him? Obviously to meet such a plea the appellant alleged in his affidavit that Mr. Jayaprada Rao obtained his "signature" on a blank paper. Since written statement requires two signatures and since affidavit filed in support of IA No. 59 of 1991 must have been attested, which could be done only in the presence of the party by the attesting officer, and since it is not even the case of the appellant that the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 59 of 1991 was got attested in his absence, the blank white paper, on which appellant allegedly affixed his signature must not have been used by Jayaprada Rao. After IA No. 59 of 1991 was allowed, and the ex parte order against him was set aside, appellant should have been more careful as the adage is 'once bitter twice shy' and should not have continued to place implicit reliance on the assurance allegedly given by Jayaprada Rao,

11. In Govindaiah case (supra) the defendant who filed the petition was an illiterate villager and he filed the petition alleging that he went to his advocate to find out the fate of his case when he did not receive communication for three years. In this case appellant, who is a contractor, can be imputed with knowledge of Court proceedings. It is his case that he engaged Mr. Jayaprada Rao as per the advice of Mr. Rammohana Reddy, brother of the then MLA, but he failed to disclose as to why he did not take steps for drafting written statement for about six years, after he gave the Vakalat. No ordinary prudent literate would do so? Significantly the appellant did not even choose to mention the date of death of Jayaprada Rao, and did not take steps to summon the accounts of Jayaprada Rao, which would reveal whether letters to the appellant were posted or not. It is well known that whenever an advocate writes a letter to his client, the cost of the letter would be debited to the account of the client. Therefore without the appellant taking steps to secure production of accounts books of Jayaprada Rao, his ipsi dixit that he did not receive any communication from Jayaprada Rao cannot be believed or accepted. Therefore, the finding of the Court below that appellant, probably taking advantage of the death of Jayaprada Rao alleged that Jayaprada Rao asked him not to come till he receives a letter, appears to be correct.