Dalip Singh, J.- I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the fact that this Court on 23.02.2005 had passed an order directing the learned trial Court to dispose of the election petition expeditiously and the fact that twice earlier an order for ex-parte proceedings were passed against the petitioner i.e., on 03.05.2005 and 12.09.2005 but the learned trial Court has set aside the same on the applications being filed by the petitioner. It is for the third time that on 21.01.2006, the Counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner did not appear to argue the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. Consequently, on 21.01.2006, an order for proceeding ex-parte was passed against the petitioner. An application under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 21.01.2006 which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on 08.02.2006.

2. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I am of the view that on 21.01.2006, the order to proceed ex-parte ought not have been passed against the petitioner instead an order on the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, which was