SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) The Court : The decree-holder questions the propriety of an order passed on a petition for setting aside an ex parte decree that found no grounds having been made out for the respondent herein not being represented before the suit Court; and yet unconditionally set aside the ex parte decree against payment of nominal costs.
(2.) The facts are not in much dispute, though considerable time has been taken on behalf of the respondent to refer to matters that were wholly unnecessary in the context of the appeal and the scope thereof. It must also be recorded that the interpretation of the facts by the trial Court has also been questioned by the respondent, without the respondent preferring any independent appeal or even a cross-objection.
(3.) There is no dispute that the writ of summons was served on the respondent by September, 2013 in a suit instituted earlier that year. The trial Court noticed the appropriate certificate in such regard having been issued by the Deputy Sheriff's office. The trial Court referred copiously to the grounds indicated in the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree verified by an affidavit of a director of the respondent herein, Harkirat Singh Bedi. Such grounds included the fact that Bedi was a busy man who required to travel a lot, that he sent e-mails to his Kolkata lawyers and that the Kolkata lawyers may not have taken appropriate steps despite the respondent's efforts to defend the suit. Indeed, in the light of the allegations levelled against a firm of Advocates by the respondent herein, an affidavit was called for from the dealing Advocate of such firm. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court from Bedi's excuses and how such excuses were dealt with by the firm of lawyers are accepted by the appellant; but are sought to be questioned by the respondent herein.;