IMPORTANT POINT
A party should not suffer due to the negligence of their advocate, emphasizing the right to a fair hearing and the importance of cross-examination.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.)

As the issue involved in these three matters is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

2. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.196 of 2016 was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs.20,16,209/- on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nellore (for short "the Court below") from the defendants together with costs. When the suit was posted on 02.12.2021 for trial, the plaintiff filed PW1 affidavit and all documents were marked. However, as the defendants called absent on that day, they were made set ex parte and the matter was posted for judgment on 15.12.2021. When the defendants came to know that the matter was posted for judgment, immediately they moved the present impugned applications vide LA No.436 of 2021 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 02.12.2021; I.A No.437 of 201 under Section 151. CPC seeking to reopen the above suit for cross examination of PW1 and PW2 and for costs and I.A No.438 of 2021 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking to recall PW1 and PW2 for the purpose of cross examination. The same were dismissed by the Court below vide common order dated 04.01.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present three matters came to be filed.

3. Heard Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioners and Sri S.Harinadha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submits that the order passed by the Court below is highly illegal, irregular and flagrant violation of law. He submits that the Court below erred in not allowing the petitions filed by the petitioners. He mainly contended that the Court below failed to consider that at any stage the Court can set aside the ex parte order. He submits that the Court below on previous occasion i.e., on 23.11.2021 as the plaintiff called absent and he could not lead his evidence on many adjournments, the lower Court posted the matter for dismissal and when the matter was posted on 02.12.2021, there was no representation on the defendants side, on that day itself, without giving fair chance, the Court below has denied the opportunity of cross-examination for the better appreciation of the facts erroneously dismissed the applications.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the suit was posted with condition of dismissal, as such the plaintiff/respondent filed affidavit of PW1, but the petitioners absent and hence the Court set the petitioners ex parte and that the Court below has rightly dismissed the applications. Therefore, learned counsel refuted the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners.

6. On a perusal of the material available on record and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel, it is observed that the suit pertains to the year 2016. When the said suit was posted to 23.11.2021, the plaintiff called absent and it was posted to 02.12.2021 under the caption `for dismissal'. But chief affidavit of PW1 was filed, Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked on that day. However the defendants called absent, no representation, again the case was kept aside and as there was no representation even at 3.45 P.M. they were set ex parte and therefore the matter was posted to 14.12.2021 for further evidence. On the said date i.e., on 14.12.2021 chief affidavit of PW2 was filed and reported no further evidence, arguments heard and the suit was posted to 15.12.2021 for judgment, Meanwhile, on 15.12.2021 the appellants/defendants moved the present impugned applications.

7. Under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may