JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C. filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2002 in Suit No. 78 of 2000, M.D.D.A. Vs. Shamshad Ahmed & others passed by Fast Track Court/Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun whereby the application No. 3C/2 of the appellant was dismissed by the court below. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondents filed a suit before IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun for declaration of and damages against the defendants/appellants. The father of the plaintiffs – Haji Istiaq Ahmed had purchased the land shown in schedule ‘A’ of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 31.05.1943, 01.06.1943 and 27.09.1943. The father of the plaintiffs died in the year 1960 thereafter the land came with the Smt. Khatun Begam, wife of the deceased. On her death, the said land in question was inherited by the plaintiffs/respondents. 1/6 share of the disputed land was sold in auction on 19.07.1975 which was purchased by ‘Tej Prakash. The land of Tej Prakash was purchased by the plaintiffs on 11.05.l982. Receiver was appointed for looking after the disputed land but the receiver did not look after the land properly due to which defendant No. 1 – M.D.D.A. took illegal possession of the land. The receiver also resigned, therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and damages. 3. M.D.D.A. contested the suit and alleged that the land described in schedule ‘B’ Khasra No. 402 belongs to Hari Singh. The said land was surplus land according to U.P. Urban Land & Ceiling Act, 1976 and has been allotted to the M.D.D.A. The defendant is owner in possession of the said land. It had no possession over the land of Khasra No. 40 and 42’A’. 4. The trial court framed relevant issues. Plaintiff also produced evidence in the case. M.D.D.A. did not adduce any evidence. The trial court decreed the suit against the defendant No. 1 – M.D.D.A. vide order dated 19.08.2000. Thereafter, M.D.D.A. filed an application No. 3C/2 which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 78 of 2000. The Civil Judge (S.D.)/10th F.T.C., Dehradun vide his order dated 16.01.2002 dismissed the said application. 5. M.D.D.A. did not adduce any evidence. The trial court decreed the suit against the defendant No. 1 – M.D.D.A. vide order dated 19.08.2000. Thereafter, M.D.D.A. filed an application No. 3C/2 which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 78 of 2000. The Civil Judge (S.D.)/10th F.T.C., Dehradun vide his order dated 16.01.2002 dismissed the said application. 5. The allegation of the M.D.D.A. is that the Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun while deciding the suit No. 4 of 1987 has not heard its argument and the plaintiff was heard ex-party in its absence. He has prayed that the judgment and decree be quashed and M.D.D.A. be heard. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun, the appellant – M.D.D.A. preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri S. Dhulia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the court below has failed to appreciate the application moved under order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and the application has been wrongly dismissed with the observations that the application is legally maintainable. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has pressed the rival contention by submitting that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was not maintainable. However, without entering into this controversy as to whether the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. was maintainable or the application was not maintainable in view of the provision of order 17 Rule 2 of C.P.C. as has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, we are confining our observations to this aspect that the party, should not suffer by the lapse on the part of the counsel or his office. The record of this case shows that the counsel of M.D.D.A. – Sri Akhil Sharma filed an affidavit that his argument could not be heard before the court below passed the judgment dated 19.08.2000. The Secretary, M.D.D.A. has also filed affidavit that the order dated 19.08.2000 was an ex-party judgment as the same judgment was passed on account of the latches and negligence on the part of counsel Sri Akhil Sharma, representing M.D.D.A. 10. The Secretary, M.D.D.A. has also filed affidavit that the order dated 19.08.2000 was an ex-party judgment as the same judgment was passed on account of the latches and negligence on the part of counsel Sri Akhil Sharma, representing M.D.D.A. 10. The judgment dated 19.08.2000 indicates that the appellant – M.D.D.A. before this Court had not adduced any evidence in support of its case. The M.D.D.A. has filed the written statement before the court below but thereafter it appears that for the latches on the part of the counsel representing – M.D.D.A., no evidence could be adduced in support of the pleading placed by the M.D.D.A. 11. It is the settled law that on account of the negligence and mistake on the part of the counsel or his office the party should not suffer in the instant case. The negligence or the mistake is not to be attributed to the M.D.D.A. but to some one who was handling its affair on his behalf the party cannot be made to suffer on that account. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2002 and direct the trial court to provide an opportunity to the M.D.D.A. for adducing the evidence in support of its case. As the matter is quite old, it is therefore, made clear that the trial court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournments to either parties and decide the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.