ORDER : 1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has brought challenge to the order dated 17.11.2017, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), whereby the petitioner’s application dated 15.11.2017 under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected. 2. Briefly narrated the facts appertain to the present writ petition are that the respondent No.1 had instituted a suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of registered sale deed dated 28.3.1998. In the said suit, vide order dated 22.10.2002, the trial Court drawn ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner, as neither the petitioner nor his counsel pursued the matter. 3. The petitioner moved an application on 15.11.2017, under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings drawn against him, inter alia, contending that he had engaged one counsel Mr. Narayan Singh Joshi, who after appearing before the Court on 1.5.2011 pleaded no instructions, about which the petitioner was never informed. 4. The petitioner’s aforesaid application filed for setting aside ex-parte proceedings came to be rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 17.11.2017, inter alia, observing that Mr. Narayan Singh Joshi, the Advocate appeared on behalf of the defendants Nos.1 and 2 and sought some time with an undertaking to file power on their behalf and thereafter, despite given six opportunities, he failed to file Vakalatnama on behalf of petitioner. The trial Court also observed that there is no justification for inordinate delay of 15 years in filing the said application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. 5. Assailing the order dated 17.11.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below has erred in rejecting petitioner’s application dated 15.11.2017. It was submitted that the petitioner was unaware of ex-parte proceedings drawn against him and he came to know about the same, only when another counsel informed about that ex-parte proceedings having been drawn against him. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he had instructed one counsel (Mr. Narayan Singh Joshi) to appear on his behalf. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he had instructed one counsel (Mr. Narayan Singh Joshi) to appear on his behalf. It is surprising that the petitioner has not bothered to inquire about his case or to take care of his case for 15 long years. Even if it is assumed that he had handed the Vakalatnama to the counsel, it was his duty to keep track of his case or at least inquire about the proceedings of the case. 7. That being the factual position, since the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings has been filed after 15 years, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s attitude has been indolent rather negligent. That apart no justifiable reason to set aside the ex-parte proceeding drawn against the petitioner has come forth. 8. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction. 9. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. The stay application No.3144/2018 is also disposed of accordingly.