- (1.) Defendants are in revision before this Court aggrieved against the order dated 7.5.2013 (P-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad whereby their application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 24.09.2007 and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 19.01.2009 has been dismissed and the findings thereof have been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 21.3.2014. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners were proceeded ex-parte on account of non appearance of their counsel and some another counsel had made statement on their behalf who was not authorised by them. It is further argued that they came to now about the ex-parte proceedings and they approached the court and moved application in question and give cogent reasons for not appearing before the Court but the learned Courts below have erred in passing the impugned judgment wrongly and dismissed their application. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon Anita & Ors. v. State of Haryana, 2014 174 PunLR 108, Ramji Gupta & Anr. v. Gopi Krishan Aggarwal (D) & Ors., 2013 2 RCR(Civ) 898, Raj Bala v. Krishna Kaul, 2013 5 RCR(Civ) 470 and M/s. N.K. Electronics v. Narinder Kumar, 2013 4 RCR(Civ) 143.
(2.) On the other hand learned Counsel for the Caveator/respondent (plaintiff) has vehemently argued that the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC have been filed only to prolong the execution proceedings as they have not been able to show any sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order dated 24.09.2007 as well as ex-parte judgment and decree dated 19.01.2009.
(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.;