R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by two orders dated 6.4.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. By the first order, he has condoned the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC; by the second order, he has allowed the application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC and has set aside the ex-parte order dated 3.9.2011.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the respondents-defendants No. 1 to 4, for cancellation of a sale-deed. On 30.7.2011, the suit was registered and summons were issued on 3.8.2011. On 3.8.2011, Smt. Munni wife of defendant No.3 appeared for all the defendants and undertook to file Vakalatnama on behalf of all the defendants. Therefore, the trial court granted time and adjourned the case to 3.9.2011. On 3.9.2011, the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 remained absent. Hence, the learned trial court ordered to proceed ex-parte against them. On 19.5.2012, the defendant No.1 Mandroop Singh, moved an application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed the reply and denied the averments made in the application. By order dated 6.4.2013, the learned trial court allowed both the applications. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. J.R. Tantia, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that despite the notice being served upon the defendant's wife, despite the fact that he was well aware that the civil suit was filed against him, still he chose not to appear before the court. Therefore, the learned trial court was justified in passing the ex-parte order. But without assigning any reason in the impugned order, the ex-parte proceedings has been set aside. Therefore, this Court should interfere.;