A.N. Verma, J. - (1.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we find no merit in this appeal. It is directed against the order dated 20 6-1988 passed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, rejecting an application filed by the appellant under Order 9, rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of an ex-parte order dated 17-8-1987.
(2.) The application has been rejected by the court below on the ground that the failure of the appellant to file written statement even after a lapse of nine years of the institution of the suit was entirely inexusable. The Court below has noted that the suit was filed in 1978. It was later decreed ex-parte in 1980 which decree was subsequently set-aside upon an application by the appellant. The suit was again decreed ex-parte on 3-2-1986 and again upon an application that decree was set aside. Thereafter for one reason or another, the defendant was getting the case adjourned. Finally the suit Was taken up on 28-7-1987 which was the date fixed for filing written statement. When the case was called out learned counsel for the defendants moved an application for adjournment upon which the court passed the following order : "Called out. Counsel present. Defendants' counsel moved in application for adjournment for time for written statement. Last opportunity is given on payment of costs of Rs. 75/-. Fix 17-8-1987 for issues. When the case was taken up on 17-8-87 the same old story was repeated. Learned counsel for the defendants again moved an application, for a month's further time to file written statement. This application was strongly opposed by the plaintiff. It appears by this time the patience of the court was exhausted and consequently it passed the following order : "17-8-1987. Called out, parties are present, Defendants' counsel moved an application for one month's time to file written statement. Strongly opposed by the plaintiff as it is an very old pending suit of 1978. Last opportunity has already been given. Hence no sufficient ground, application for time is rejected."
(3.) The order speaks for itself and clearly discloses that the defendants were treating the suit with utmost casualness, if not total in different. We entirely agree with the court below that the defendant were interested solely in delaying the disposal of the suit possibly because they had no answer to the claim of the plaintiff.;