Order

18/01/2024

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur, Camp Mavli in Civil Case No.25/2018 (CIS No.143/2018) whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151, CPC as preferred by the defendant has been rejected.

2. The application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC was preferred to get the ex parte decree dated 10.03.2017, for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,90,440/- as passed against the defendant, set aside.

3. The case of the defendant was that he did appoint a lawyer to represent him but he neither put in appearance regularly nor did he inform the defendant about the further dates in the matter. The defendant was not even informed by the counsel about the ex parte decree dated 10.03.2017 as passed against him. It is only through the Court that the defendant came to know about the passing of the said decree and pendency of the execution proceedings against him.

4. The learned Court below while rejecting the application, specifically observed that not a single fact as to when the information through the Court as alleged by the defendant was received by him, when the copies of the