SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) Inspite of service upon the respondent and the pendency of the case since 12.12.2012, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, even in the second round.
(2.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "A] The order impugned dated 06.11.2012 (Annex.7) passed by the learned District Judge, Dungarpur may kindly be quashed and set aside. B] The application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act may kindly be allowed as prayed. C] Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. D] Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) The plaintiff/petitioner filed a money recovery suit in respect of an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- on 10.04.1996. The respondents pleaded no instructions, and thus, ex parte proceedings resulted into the petitioner exhibiting fourteen documents.;