- (1.) The petitioner, who is the defendant in the main suit, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 31.1.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby its application for setting aside/recalling the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22.12.2001 passed by the first Appellate Court, has been dismissed.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner made on oral request that this petition should be treated as S.A.O., as it has been filed against the order of dismissal of the application for re-hearing of the first appeal under Order 41 Rule 21. CPC, and the said order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 (t) CPC. The oral request made by the counsel for the petitioner is allowed and the revision petition is ordered to be treated as S.A.O. Registry is directed to number this appeal.
(3.) In his application for re-hearing of the appeal, the appellant had stated that it had engaged an Advocate to defend the appeal, but he did not appear to defend the same. Consequently, while reversing the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2001 passed by the trial Court, the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed by the first Appellate Court and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. It is the case of the appellant that when it came to know about the ex parte Judgment, immediately it filed an application for recalling the said ex parte judgment. The first Appellate Court after taking the evidence of both the parties, dismissed the said application while observing that the appellant could not explain the sufficient reasons for not appearing in the appeal before the first Appellate Court. It has also been found that the application was barred by limitation as the same was filed after more than one month of the knowledge of the ex parte judgment.;