S. K. MAHAJAN ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,29,197. 26 paise and possession of specific goods of the residual value of Rs. 30. 578. 93 paise. Summons of the suit having been served on the defendants, they entered appearance. Defendant No. 3 after service engaged counsel and also filed a Written Statement. On 24/5/1988 the case was listed before the Court for framing of issues. It appears that on a few hearings before 14/7/1988, no one was appearing for defendant No. 3 and the deputy Registrar, therefore, listed the matter before the Court on 14/7/1988 for further proceedings in the matter. As no one was present on behalf of Defendant no. 3 and for the other defendants, the Court proceeded ex parte against them, Ex parte evidence was led by means of affidavit and on 13/10/1988 ex parte decree was passed against all the defendants. ( 2 ) THIS application has now been filed by defendant No. 3 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree after almost about 18 years of the passing of the same. The application is not supported by any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in moving this application. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this short ground alone. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant even on the merits of the application and I am, therefore, giving my findings on the merits of the application as well. ( 3 ) THE case set up by the applicant in this application for setting aside ex parte decree is that the applicant had engaged a counsel to conduct the case who filed the written Statement on 23/4/1982. It is stated that till July, 1982, the counsel for defendant No. 3 regularly appeared in Court, when an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 Criminal Procedure Code for impleading another person as a party to the suit as defendant No. 5. After July, 1982 no one appeared on behalf of defendant no. 3 till the ex parte decree was passed by the Court. It is stated in the application that defendant No. 4 had expired before passing of the decree and an application to bring on record his legal heirs was pending. It is contended by Mr. After July, 1982 no one appeared on behalf of defendant no. 3 till the ex parte decree was passed by the Court. It is stated in the application that defendant No. 4 had expired before passing of the decree and an application to bring on record his legal heirs was pending. It is contended by Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant that as an application of the Plaintiff under Order 22 rule 4 Criminal Procedure Code to bring on record the L. Rs of deceased defendant No. 4 was pending, it was not necessary for the other defendants to appear in Court till such time the application was decided. This application was decided on 17/2/1987. Mr. Jagjit singh, therefore, contends that after the decision of the application it was the duly of the Court to send notice to defendant No. 3 to appear in Court and as no notice was given either to the counsel or to defendant No. 3, the ex parte decree is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) IT is also the contention of Mr. Jagjit Singh that the counsel who was conducting the case on behalf of defendant No. 3 was appointed a Judicial Officer sometimes in october, 1984 and the party was not aware of the same and the Court should have therefore, issued notice to defendant No. 3. ( 5 ) I have perused the record and have also heard learned counsel for the defendant no-3/applicant and I do not find any merit in the submissions of Mr. Jagjit Singh. It is the duty of the party to the Suit to continue to enquire form his counsel what has been happening in the case. As per her own admission, defendant No. 3 in the present case had not bothered for 18 long years to enquire either from her counsel or from the court as to what happened in the matter. Unexplained silence of 18 years on the part of the applicant clearly show that either Defendant No-3/applicant was not willing to contest the suit or was grossly negligent in the conduct of the suit. A perusal of the file also shows that beside the counsel, who had been appointed the Judicial Officer, another counsel had also been engaged by the applicant. A perusal of the file also shows that beside the counsel, who had been appointed the Judicial Officer, another counsel had also been engaged by the applicant. No reasons have been given in the plaint as to why the other counsel who was engaged by defendant No. 3, had not been appearing in the case. No explanation has also been given as to why the applicant did not contact his counsel even once in 18 years between 1982 and the date of filing the application. Mr. Jagjit Singh has referred to the judgments reported as Malikat Singh and Anr. Vs. Joginder Singh, and Ors. JT 1997 (9) SC 642, rafiq and another Vs. Munshi Lal and another. AIR 1981, SC 1400 Smt. Lachi tewari and others Vs. Director of Land Records and others AIR 1984 SC 41 and Kanij Fatima Vs. Nairn Ashraf AIR 1983 Allahabad 450, to contend that once a party had engaged a counsel, the party cannot be penalised for non-appearance in the case. In my view none of the judgments cited by the counsel apply to the facts of the present case. ( 6 ) ENGAGING a lawyer does not mean that the party is absolved of his/her duty to diligently pursue the case. Recently a tendency has developed amongst the litigants to blame his/her lawyer for an adverse order passed in the case without realising that a lawyer cannot conduct the case without proper instructions from the party. The lawyer is not expected to write to his client after every date of hearing about the developments in the case unless there is a specific contract about the same. A perusal of Vakalatnama given by the applicant to her counsel shows that the applicant had undertaken to appear in Court on all hearings either by herself or by her authorised agent and inform the advocate for appearance, when the case is called. There was thus no contract between the applicant and her advocate that she will be informed about the developments in the case by her advocate after country hearing. It is thus a case of gross negligence on the part of the applicant in the conduct of the case and there is no cause, not to speak of sufficient cause, for her non-appearance in Court for 18 long years. It is thus a case of gross negligence on the part of the applicant in the conduct of the case and there is no cause, not to speak of sufficient cause, for her non-appearance in Court for 18 long years. No case has been made out by the applicant for setting aside ex parte decree against her. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the application is not only hopelessly barred, by time but is also an abuse of the process of the Court. The application is accordingly dismissed. IA 3350/2000 ( 8 ) AS the application for setting aside the decree has been dismissed, this application has become infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed.