9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner for setting aside the ex parte order as well as for acceptance of the written statement. 2. Opposite party No. 1 is the Plaintiff and the present Petitioner is Defendant No. 5 in the suit. The suit has been filed for declaration of the title and confirmation of possession over the suit property and also for permanent injunction and restraining the Defendants from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1. Though the suit had been filed in the year 1992 and the Petitioner had received notice, no steps were taken on his behalf for filing written statement and accordingly he was set ex parte. Only on 3rd January 2005 a petition was filed by the Petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and on analysis of the decisions cited as well as the fact involved in this case, the trial Court was of the view that the petition filed by the Petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed the same. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant No. 5-Petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that after service of notice in the suit the Petitioner had entered appearance and steps were taken regularly till 18.1.1993 but on the assurance of the Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 that she would withdraw her claim against him to further steps were taken. Unfortunately, the Petitioner was set ex parte on 18.1.1993 and only in the year 2005 the Petitioner came to know that the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cedure the Court has jurisdiction to accept the written statement but the same should be done as an exception and not as a rule. Now, therefore the question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the Petitioner has been able to show sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order after twelve years. In this connection, a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mahindra Kumar and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0013/1963 : A.I.R. 1964 SC 993 is relevant. The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision observed as follows: There is no material difference between the facts to be established for satisfying the two tests of "good cause" and "sufficient cause". There cannot be a "good cause" whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
