- (1.) THE instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No.63/2009, whereby, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the appellant was rejected.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant herein (defendant in the suit) took a loan of Rs.87,500/ - from the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, the respondent herein. As the loan was not repaid, a suit was instituted by the respondent Bank in the court of the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,04,088/ - along with the interest thereupon. The suit was transferred by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar to the court of the learned Addl. District Judge, No.2, Sri Ganganagar on 16.7.2009. The appellant herein (defendant in the suit) engaged Shri Prem Prakash Makkad, Advocate to plead the matter on her behalf. The matter was fixed by the court on 18.8.2009, but, on that day because of the non appearance of the Advocates in the courts at Sri Ganganagar, the learned counsel for the appellant could not appear before the trial court and, thus, the trial court initiated ex parte proceedings. The evidence of the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) was recorded and on 29.8.2009 an ex parte judgment cum decree was passed by the trial court. The appellant immediately on coming to know about passing of the ex parte judgment cum decree, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the same. However, the learned trial court rejected the said application filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel Shri B.S.Sandhu appearing on behalf of the appellant whilst placing reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of LR's of late Smt. Keshar Devi & Ors. Vs. Smt. Vajeera, reported in 2014 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 214 submits that the litigant should not be made to suffer for the negligence of a lawyer. He submits that the suit filed by the respondent Bank was time barred, yet without prejudice to the defences available, the appellant is ready to deposit an appropriate amount with the respondent Bank to show her bonafides. He thus prays that the order impugned be quashed and the original suit be restored to its original number.;