The court emphasized that ex parte proceedings can be set aside unless the defendant deliberately causes irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff, and negligence in appearance can be condoned by making payment of costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. Without in any manner being distracted by the many Original Appeals and various applications which have to be decided, in sum and substance, the prayers are for allowing the legal heirs of defendant no. 1 to appear and contest the proceedings by being substituted in place of the deceased defendant no.1 and that the defendant nos. 9 and 10 who are the purchasers of rights from defendant no. 1 are allowed to get set aside the ex parte proceedings against them and thus permitting them to contest the suit on merits.

2. The subject suit is a suit for partition of a property stated by the plaintiff to be joint Hindu family property. The property is the property bearing no. 3/64, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Originally, there were four defendants in the suit and subsequently, after allowing of the two amendments, the number of defendants increased to 9 and then to 10, defendant no. 10 being the wife of defendant no. 9 and both these defendants being purchasers of the suit property.

3. The defendant nos. 2(a), 3, 4 and 7 as also defendant nos. 5, 6 and 8 are in fact supporting the plaintiff because they fall in the plaintiff’s branch. The effective contesting defendant in the case was defendant no. 1. Defendant no.1 had filed his initial written statement on 7.1.2005 taking the plea that the suit property is not a joint Hindu family property but the said property is exclusively owned by defendant no. 1 as the title deeds of the property are in the name of defendant no. 1.

4. The defendant nos. 9 and 10 who have purchased the rights of defendant no. 1, and therefore, they will be taken up as one group along with defendant no. 1.

5. For disposal of various applications, a few dates are relevant for the purpose of adjudication. These are:-

S.No.	DATE	FACTS
1.	07.01.2005	Defendant no. 1 appeared and filed his written statement.
2.	06.11.2007	The defendant no. 9 was impleaded and subsequently served on 07.12.2007.
3.	25.03.2008	Amended written statement was filed by defendant no. 1 after plaint was amended to add defendant no. 9, the husband of defendant no. 10 and which defendant no.10 was subsequently impleaded. (Though the counsel for the plaintiff argued that after this amendment adding defendant no.9, the right to file the amended written statement shall be closed, since the same was not filed within one week as per order dated 25.3.2008 and the same was filed on 2.5.2008, however it is noted here that there is no specific order taking the amended written statement of defendant no. 1 off the record and in fact the defendant no.1 would have a right to file fresh written statement on account of addition of defendant no.10 subsequently).
4.	08.05.2009	The defendant no. 10 was impleaded and who was served on 26.7.2008. It is the second time the plaintiff was allowed to make amendments accordingly in the plaint; and make averments against defendant no. 10 including a prayer for cancellation of the sale deed in favour of defendant no. 10. As per this order, a fresh opportunity was given to all the defendants to file the amended written statement and this is another reason as to why the earlier order dated 25.3.2008 by which defendant no. 1 not being entitled to file the amended written statement would be superseded.
5.	30.11.2009	The defendant no. 10 moved two applications; one under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and other under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC being IA nos. 15466/2009 and 15465/2009 respectively.
6.	08.12.2009	Defendant nos. 1, 9 and 10 are proceeded ex parte. Also IA nos. 15466/2009 and 15465/2009 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and other under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC respectively by the defendants no. 9 & 10 wer