Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE appellant -defendant has filed the present appeal under Or. XLIII R. 1(d) of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 26.8.1996, passed by the Additional District Judge, Behrod, (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), in Civil Misc. application No. 6/1996, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the appellant -defendant filed under Or. IX Rule 13 of C.P.C., for setting -aside the decree dated 14.12.1993, passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 1/89, filed by the respondent -plaintiff. It appears that the respondent -plaintiff had filed the suit being no. 1/89 against the appellant -defendant for the recovery of Rs. 13,500/ - along with interest, in the year 1988. In the said suit one counsel Mr. Raghuveer Sing Yadav had filed his appearance for the appellant -defendant, however, subsequently he had pleaded no instructions on 6.2.1992. The trial court, therefore, had passed the order on 17.9.1992 for proceeding exparte. Thereafter the trial court considering the evidence led by the respondent -plaintiff, passed the decree on 4.12.1992 against the appellant -defendant. The appellant -defendant having come to know about the said judgment and decree, had filed the application being Misc. Application No. 6/96, under Or. IX Rule 13, for setting aside the said decree before the trial court. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 26.8.1996. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) AT the out -set, it is required to be noted that though the present appeal is of 1996, the same remained pending for about 16 years at admission stage without any progress. Be that as it may, it further appears that the appellant -defendant had filed the application under Or IX Rule 13 on the ground that the concerned counsel was not authorized to appear on behalf of the appellant. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent -plaintiff had filed the Vakalatnama of the said lawyer for showing that he was appearing for the appellant -defendant, though no such lawyer was engaged by the appellant defendant. According to him, when no instructions were pleaded by the said lawyer, the trial court should have again issued notice to the appellant before proceeding exparte against the appellant. There does not appear to be any substance in any of the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the appellant. From the impugned order passed by the trial court it clearly transpired that the counsel Mr. Raghuveer Singh Yadav had filed his appearance for the appellant -defendant and had also sought adjournments from time to time and that on 6.2.1992, he had pleaded no instructions. As rightly observed by the trial court in the impugned order, if the concerned counsel was not engaged by the appellant defendant, necessary action was required to be taken against the said counsel who had filed his appearance without authority of the appellant -defendant. However, admittedly no such action has been taken against the said counsel. Having regard to order passed by the trial court, it clearly transpires that the appellant -defendant, though was aware about the pendency of suit, deliberately did not appear and after the passing of the decree, had filed the application under Or. IX R. 13 to prolong the proceedings. Under the circumstances, the Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.;