Ladu vs Kalyanmal and others

Atma Charan, J.C.

Heard the parties.

This is a defendant''s application in revision from the order of the trial Court refusing to set aside the ex parte decree under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C. The perusal of his written statement on the record of the trial Court goes to show that he had admitted his liability as a surety for the principal debtor. He appeared before the trial Court time after time, but did not retract from that position. The trial Court, in the circumstances, was perfectly justified in holding that on the date in question the defendant did not wish to appear and put in a defence contrary to what he had admitted in his written statement. No case accordingly is made out for setting aside the order of the trial Court refusing to set aside the ex parte decree.

The perusal of the application in revision shows that the defendant, in fact, now challenges the very written statement filed on his behalf before the trial Court. His case appears to be that one of the plaintiffs took advantage of his ignorance and illiteracy and got scribed the written statement for him without giving him an opportunity for explaining the contents thereof. On this ground certainly no case whatsoever is made out for setting aside the ex parte decree. The remedy in the matter, if at all, lies by way of a regular suit and not by way of an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C.

The application in revision is therefore dismissed: the costs shall be easy.