Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THE application (IA No. 6035/2011) for early hearing as made by the Respondent No. 1 though contains some typographical errors but while ignoring such shortcomings, is considered and is allowed; and, having regard to the circumstances, the matter is taken up for consideration today itself.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 at the outset candidly submits that the Petitioner may be permitted to participate in the proceedings in the civil suit and he does not intend to oppose this petition against the order dated 01.02.2008 whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application moved under Order IX Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure by the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 appears right in not attempting to support the impugned order dated 01.02.2008 whereby the learned Trial Court proceeded to reject the prayer made on behalf of the Petitioner for setting aside ex parte proceedings. It appears that the learned Trial Court has taken too rigid a view of the matter while ignoring that the rules of procedure are essentially meant to ensure proper progress of the proceedings and to subserve the cause of justice. For some delay having been caused because of the faults and omissions of the Petitioner, the Plaintiff could have been compensated in terms of costs but declining altogether the prayer for opportunity to participate further in the suit does not appear proper. The impugned order dated 01.02.2008 cannot be sustained.
(3.) HOWEVER , it is noticed that on account of the fault and default on the part of the Petitioner, the matter got unnecessarily delayed. Hence, even while it appears appropriate to set aside the order impugned 01.02.2008 and to allow the Petitioner to participate in the suit proceedings but then, at the same time, it appears proper to put the Petitioner to terms and to make necessary observations for further progress of the matter.;