Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) ADMIT .
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The applicants/respondents No. 1 to 4 filed an election petition under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, in the trial court, challenging the election of defendant No. 2 -petitioner, who was elected to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kishanpura, Panchayat Samiti Javaja, District Ajmer. The defendant No. 2 did not remain present in the trial court on 25th April, 2005 in spite of service of summon of the election petition, therefore, the trial court passed an ex -parte order against him. Thereafter the election petition proceeded further. The applicants' evidence has been closed in the case. The defendant No. 2/petitioner filed an application on 29th October, 2007 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting -aside ex -parte order, and that application was contested by the applicants/respondents No. 1 to 4. The trial court, vide its order dated 12th December, 2007, rejected the application. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the non -applicant No. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner could not understand properly about his appearance in the court regularly and soon he came to know about ex -parte order passed against him, he immediately moved the application; he was elected by the public at large and, in case, the impugned order is not set -aside and an opportunity is not granted to him to file reply to the election petition then there is possibility that his election may be set -aside and in that eventuality he will suffer irreparable loss, therefore, in the interest of justice, one opportunity may be granted to him to file his reply to the election petition; he does not want to cross -examine any witness of the applicant in order to avoid delay in the proceedings and, so far as the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is concerned, he is prepared to pay the costs to the opposite -party. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner did not appear before the trial court deliberately on 25th April, 2005, therefore, the trial court was fully justified in passing the ex -parte order against him. He further contended that he did not care about the case and for about two -and -a half - year he did not move the application before the trial court for setting -aside the ex -parte order. He further contended that no cogent reason has been assigned by him for his nonappearance on 25th April, 2005, therefore, the petitioner has no case and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court.
(3.) IT has been observed in the impugned order that on 25th April, 2005 the non -applicant Hajari Singh did not appear in spite of service of notice. The application was filed on 29th October, 2007 after a delay of two -and -a -half year. No application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed explaining the delay in filing the application. It has also been observed that 'vakalatnama' on behalf of the non -applicant No. 2 was filed after the ex -parte proceedings were ordered.;