Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. On consideration of the matter and threadbare analysis, I find that the appellants are harping on the alleged negligence or carelessness of their counsel without any basis at all. It is not disputed that the operation of the RDDBFI Act was stayed by the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, meaning thereby that the jurisdiction of the civil court continued during the period of operation of stay. Indeed, there could not be a vacuum. When the operation of the RDDBFI Act was stayed, it could not be said that the civil court also did not have jurisdiction in respect of recovery suits of over Rs. 10 lakhs of the banks and the financial institutions. In the case at hand, admittedly the appellants had put in appearance in the suit before the civil court. It is also an undenying fact that they did not appear there on October 24, 1994. It was this day by which they were to file written statement. As they neither appeared nor filed written statement on October 24, 1994, the suit was ordered to proceed ex parte against them. It is admitted by the appellants/defendants that they appeared before the civil court with their counsel on January 24, 1995. It, thus, cannot be denied that on January 24, 1995, they acquired knowledge of the earlier order dated October 24, 1994, whereby the suit had been ordered to proceed ex parte against them. On January 24, 1995, the civil court ordered for the transfer of the case to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, but no transfer took place de facto or de jure, because the operation of the RDDBFI Act was stayed by the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the jurisdiction continued with the civil court during the period of operation of stay. No application for setting aside the order dated October 24, 1994, was made by the appellants/defendants, in spite of having come to know of it on January 24, 1995. The fact that they acquired knowledge of the order dated October 24, 1994, on January 24, 1995, runs counter to their contention that they actually acquired knowledge of ex parte judgment and decree dated March 27, 1996, and order dated October 24, 1994, only on August 6, 1997.

11. Otherwise also, the restoration application was bereft of any merit. It is crystal clear from the fact that the order to proceed ex parte had been passed on October 24, 1994. Though the defendants appeared on January 24, 1995, but they never moved any application for setting aside the ex parte order dated October 24, 1994, despite the fact that operation of the RDDBFI Act had been stayed by the superior court and the jurisdiction continued to be vested with the civil court which dealt with the matter and ultimately passed the ex parte decree on March 27, 1996. To say in other words, they allowed the case to proceed ex parte. It is notorious that a defendant with a weak case allows the case to proceed ex parte and then belatedly applies for restoration to linger on the litigation. The appellants/ defendants have chosen the same course here too.

12. No notice at all was necessary to be issued afresh to the defendants when the jurisdiction continued to be with the civil court which could proceed further in the matter till the vacation of the stay as to the operation of the RDDBFI Act by the superior court. The civil court rightly proceeded ahead and passed the ex parte decree dated March 27, 1996. The defendants/appellants have to blame themselves for the same. The ground advanced by them to set aside the ex parte decree is not backed by any justifiable cause or sufficient reason and the appeal has to fail.