DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) THE Defendant Nos. 5(a) to 5(j) and 6 applied for recalling of the ex parte decree dated March 6, 2014.
(2.) THE said defendants sought to explain their non -appearance at the hearing of the suit on the ground that their Advocate -on - record was receiving medical treatment at Bangalore for the period between January 15, 2014 to March 10, 2014. It was also contended that the said defendants were present during the witness action. It was only during the stage of arguments that due to the absence of their Advocate -on -record that the said defendants went unrepresented. The defendants wanted to have the opportunity to advance their arguments. The learned Counsel for the said defendants offered to pay costs of Rs.25,000/ - to the plaintiffs in the event the decree was recalled and they were offered an opportunity to advance their arguments. The plaintiffs opposed the application. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that, the defendants had adequate notice of the date fixed for arguments. The plaintiffs had issued a notice dated November 21, 2013 which was received by the Advocate for the defendants. The learned Advocate for the defendants appeared on January 5, 2014. Since then the defendants chose not to appear to contest the suit. No ground was made out for the purpose of recalling the ex parte decree.
(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials on record. The suit was heard on February 27, 2014. The Advocate for the defendants did not appear on such date. The explanation given for such non -appearance was the medical emergency of the concerned Advocate. For the fault of the Advocate a litigant cannot be penalized. Moreover, the defendants have offered to compensate the plaintiffs with costs of Rs.25,000/ -.;