Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed on behalf of Sardarjaswant Singh (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the respondent) under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in this application it has been prayed thatex-parte order dated 13/11/1991 passed by this Court be set-aside andthe respondent be allowed to file the affidavit by way of evidence. Notice of thisapplication was issued to the petitioners and the petitioners in their reply dated 15/01/1992 have controverted the averments made in the application. ( 2 ) MR. Manmohan Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/applicant submitted that the respondent had engaged Shri 0. P. Sharma,advocate in this case and it was because of negligence on the part of the saidadvocate that the respondent was directed to be proceeded against ex-parte videorders dated 15/03/1991 and thereafter since the said Advocate did notappear on behalf of the respondent, an ex-parte order was passed by this Court on 13/11/1991 whereby the petition was accepted and the design bearingno. 158951 in Clause I dated 16/05/1988 was ordered to be cancelled. Thelearned Counsel submitted that the respondent should not be allowed to suffer forthe inaction or omission on the part of his Advocate. In support of his contention,learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofrafiq and Anr. v. Munshilal and Anr, AIR 1981 SC 1400 . ( 3 ) MR. Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners /non-applicants, however, submitted that in the present case the respondent and hiscounsel both have been negligent right from the initial stage of the case and theapplicant had failed to show that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearanceof the respondent and his Counsel on a large number of hearings. He submittedthat the present case was not one of those cases where it could be said that therespondent was an innocent person having suffered merely because his Advocatedefaulted. He further submitted that in the present case the impugned order dated 13/11/1991 had been passed on merits. He, therefore, contended that theapplication was without any merit and be dismissed with costs. In support of hiscontention, learned Counsel placed reliance on ajudgement of this Court in the caseof Gloria Chemicals v. RK. Cables and Ors. , AIR 1988 Delhi 213. He further submitted that in the present case the impugned order dated 13/11/1991 had been passed on merits. He, therefore, contended that theapplication was without any merit and be dismissed with costs. In support of hiscontention, learned Counsel placed reliance on ajudgement of this Court in the caseof Gloria Chemicals v. RK. Cables and Ors. , AIR 1988 Delhi 213. ( 4 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made bylearned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. From the records,i find that after the notice of the petition was served on the respondent, Shri O. P. Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent on 9/03/1989. Thereafter none appeared on behalf of the respondent on 16/05/1989 and 1 1/09/1989. On 4/10/1989 final opportunity was granted to therespondent to file the reply. The issues were framed on 30/01/1990 and theparties were directed to file affidavits by way of evidence and the case was directedto be listed before the Deputy Registrar on 16/04/1990. However, noneappeared on behalf of the respondent on 16/04/1990 and again on 23/05/1990. On 18/07/1990 at the request of learned Counsel for the respondent, thecase was adjourned to 16/11/1990 for admission/denial of documents. Thereafter none appeared on behalf of the respondent on 16/11/1990 and 14/12/1990. On 4/03/1991 at the request of learned Counsel for therespondent, the case was adjourned for 15/03/1991 as the learned Counsel forthe respondent wanted to seek instructions from his client. Thereafter noneappeared on behalf of the respondent on 15/03/1991 and the respondent wasset down ex-parte and the case was fixed for arguments on 23/05/1991. Finallythe impugned order were passed on 13/11/1991. ( 5 ) FROM the facts stated hereinabove, it is evident that even no reply was filedon behalf of the respondent, though the respondent was directed to file the replywithin four weeks in terms of orders passed on 9/03/1989. From this it is alsoevident that the respondent was throughout negligent and had not been pursuinghis case. As held by this Court in the case of Gloria Chemicals (supra) mistake ofthe Counsel in certain circumstances can be taken into account for setting aside anex-parte decree but there is no general preposition that mistake of Counsel by itselfis always a sufficient ground. As stated hereinabove, besides the mistake of thecounsel, the respondent himself had been quite negligent as even no reply wasfiled on behalf of the respondent. As stated hereinabove, besides the mistake of thecounsel, the respondent himself had been quite negligent as even no reply wasfiled on behalf of the respondent. ( 6 ) IN view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this applicaionand the same is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.