( 1 ) IA No. 12079/95 is filed on behalf of the defendant under Order 9 Rule 7 and under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for recalling the order dated 11. 10. 1995 by which the defendant had been set exparte.

( 2 ) AS a matter of fact, order dated 11. 10. 1995 is only the repetition of the order dated 17. 04. 1995 and that is not an independent order setting the defendant ex parte.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21. 04. 1989. The plaint was presented on 13. 06. 1989. The defendant in the written statement stated that she is leading a very comfortable life. The income of the defendant from the agriculture and from deposits on the compensation amount, is more than the savings. According to her, she is enjoying surplus money. In para 4 of the written statement she stated thus: In the circumstances as above in which the defendant is placed there is no agreement made for the sale or transfer of any land by the defendant. She cannot and will never execute an instrument for the conveyance of her lands in any manner whatsoever. All her affairs are in the control and supervision of her son and he has never advised the defendant to effect any sale or transfer of her lands. The son has also not done anything of the kind on her behalf. The agreement in suit is a bogus transaction. It is a sham document. The plaintiff has forged and fabricated this document in collusion and connivance with some of the relations of the defendant, the said relations in the past have made many an attempts to usurp the properties of the defendant. Attempts to secure a Will of the defendant have even been made. Defendant cannot even enter into any such transaction, in view of her limited interest.

( 4 ) IT is stated in para 6 that the agreement to sell was brought about by misrepresentation. It is stated in para 7 of the written statement that the plaintiff is not a stranger to the defendant. The plaintiff is jealous and enimical towards the family of the defendant. The defendant has no knowledge of the alleged agreement till she received the summon from this court.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff filed the replication repudiating the allegations made in the written statement. The suit was being adjourned from time to time. On 31. 01. 1995 this court passed the following orders: Defendant is present in person accompanied by her daughter Jagwati. The defendant states that she is very poor and cannot engage a counsel. She is referred to Legal Aid Board, Lawyers Chamber, High Court. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal Aid and Advise Board requesting him to provide a counsel, who may render legal assistance to her. To come up for hearing on 17th April 1995.

( 6 ) ON 17. 04. 1995, this court passed the following order when the defendant did not appear: Copy of the order dated 31. 01. 1995 was sent to Legal Aid and Advice Board. Today there is no appearance on behalf of the defendant. Case is directed to proceed ex parte against the defendant. The plaintiff may lead ex parte evidence. However, in the facts of the case let a notice without process fee issue to the defendant of the date of hearing. To be listed on 18. 09. 1995.

( 7 ) ON 18. 09. 1995, when Mr. Ashok Kumar, stated to be the grand-son appeared in court and this court passed the following order: Mr. Ashok Kumar grand-son of defendant is present today in court. He seeks time to engage an advocate from the legal aid. Last opportunity is granted to the defendant to comply with the order dated 31. 01. 1995 on or before 11. 10. 1995. Mr. Ashok Kumar states that he does not know the relationship of Mr. Rajesh Tyagi advocate with the defendant as he is the real grand-son of defendant. Adjourned to 11. 10. 1995.

( 8 ) ON 11. 10. 1995, this court passed the following order: Defendant does not appear and already set ex parte. Let affidavit by way of ex-parte evidence be filed by the plaintiff within three weeks. List the mat