Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 951 (RAJ)

Ghisha Ram v. District

2006-03-24

DALIP SINGH

body2006
Judgment Dalip Singh, J.- I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the fact that this Court on 23.02.2005 had passed an order directing the learned trial Court to dispose of the election petition expeditiously and the fact that twice earlier an order for ex-parte proceedings were passed against the petitioner i.e., on 03.05.2005 and 12.09.2005 but the learned trial Court has set aside the same on the applications being filed by the petitioner. It is for the third time that on 21.01.2006, the Counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner did not appear to argue the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. Consequently, on 21.01.2006, an order for proceeding ex-parte was passed against the petitioner. An application under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 21.01.2006 which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on 08.02.2006. 2. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I am of the view that on 21.01.2006, the order to proceed ex-parte ought not have been passed against the petitioner instead an order on the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, which was fixed for that date was required to be passed and the same should have been dismissed for non-prosecution as the case was fixed for hearing the same. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this application under Order 7 Rule 11 may be deemed to have been dismissed but he may be permitted to lead evidence and the order of ex-parte may be set aside. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the order for taking ex-parte proceedings, recorded on 21.01.2006, is set aside on the condition that petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/-to the respondent-plaintiff/election petitioner on the next date of hearing and the defendant-petitioner would complete his evidence on two dates to be fixed by the learned trial Court and will not seek any adjournment in that behalf . The witnesses would be brought by the defendant-petitioner on his own accord and no process would be sought by him for their production. 5. This writ petition is disposed of , as indicated above.