R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 31.5.2008 and has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 18.6.1999, the respondent, Ramji Lal, had filed a civil suit against the petitioner. On 9.5.2005, the petitioner had appeared before the learned trial court and had sought time to engage a counsel of his choice. His counsel submitted his power on 7.7.2005. However, as the petitioner's counsel was absent on 21.2.2007, the learned trial court decided to proceed ex -parte against the petitioner and passed the decree. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. However, by order dated 31.5.2008, the learned trial court dismissed the said application. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Judge. But by order dated 20.3.2013, the learned Judge has also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 31.5.2008. Hence, this petition before this court. Relying on the case of G.P. Srivastava v. Shri R.K. Raizada & Ors. [ : AIR 2000 SC 1221], the learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that a technical view should not be taken by the learned courts below and in fact, the respondent could have been compensated monetarily by imposing a cost on the petitioner. However, both the learned courts below have taken a hyper -technical view and have rejected the petitioner's application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused both the impugned orders.;