- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The appellants-defendants are aggrieved against rejection of their application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 plaintiff filed a suit for a sum of Rs.22,43,429/- seeking compensation against the appellants on account of their failure to execute the work in terms of the contract executed between the parties. The suit was filed on 31.05.2002. The appellants were duly served and were represented by counsel before the learned trial court. However, no written statement was filed despite providing six opportunities and thereafter the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded and the suit was decreed ex parte on 03.12.2005.
(3.) AN application was filed under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC on 09.01.2006, inter alia, with the contentions that the counsel was engaged by the defendants and they were assured by the counsel that as and when there would be any requirement, he would inform them. However, no information was received from the counsel and the suit has been decreed ex parte. It was further contended that Sumer Bhai, one of the defendants was not well during the said period and, therefore, for the mistake of the counsel, the parties should not be made to suffer.;