M. Katju, J. - (1.) -This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 7.5.2002 by which defendants appellants' application praying for condonation of the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 16.5.1998 has been rejected.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff respondent filed Suit No. 728 of 1990 for a permanent injunction against the defendants appellants for restraining them from digging foundation, laying roads, making any addition, alteration, construction or executing any agreement to sell etc. in favour of any one except the plaintiff, and for a specific performance to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 16.11.1984 in respect of disputed property. Notice was issued to the defendants who entered appearance and filed written statements on 29.8.1991. Thereafter they absented themselves and did not appear in the suit, and hence the court below passed the order dated 18.1.1993 directing the suit to proceed ex parte and ultimately on 16.5.1998 the suit was decreed ex parte.
(3.) ON 4.9.2000, the defendants appellants filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. One Jan Grah Nirman Samiti claiming under the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the present appellant had got itself impleaded in the suit by moving an application dated 29.8.1991. The said Samiti was made defendant No. 3, and it contested the suit till the last, copy of the impleadment application is Annexure-CA 1 to the counter-affidavit in reply to the stay application in this appeal. Extract of the relevant order sheet is Annexure-CA 2. It is alleged that on 29.8.2001 when the Samiti applied for impleadment defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants) were present in Court, but they did not file any objection and absented themselves in the suit. It is alleged that this was quite deliberate and intentional and they were playing hide and seek.;