- (1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 6.12.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside of ex-parte order dated 27.7.2009, was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit on 3.6.2009 for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 21.8.2006. After service of the petitioner-defendant, she was directed to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.7.2009. The application for setting aside of ex-parte order was filed by the petitioner on 9.6.2010. The same having been rejected by the learned court below, the petitionerdefendant is before this court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had engaged a counsel immediately after her service, who had even filed memo of appearance in the court on the same date, i.e., 27.7.2009. Thereafter, written statement was also filed. However, he came to know about the fact that the petitioner had been proceeded against ex-parte only when he was denied opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness on 9.6.2010. There is no delay in filing the application after the order directing the petitioner to be proceeded against ex-parte came to his notice. The petitioner was not at fault as she had done whatever possibly could be in the circumstances of the case. A client is always guided by the counsel.;