ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration, specific performance, possession and permanent injunction against the petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2 with the assertion that they have entered into an agreement to sell the land for a consideration of Rs.
3,00,000/- per Kanal on 22.06.2007 and received earnest money of Rs. 4,00,000/- and the remaining amount was to be paid on execution of sale. Written statements were filed separately.
Issues were framed. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. Which was contested and the application was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2010 but thereafter due to non- appearance of the petitioner/defendant No. 1, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.11.2010. He filed an application under Order IX, Rules 7 & 13, C.P.C. For setting aside the ex parte proceedings which was contented and the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2011 by the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved of the said order the petitioner filed appeal which too met the same fate on 09.05.2012, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are against law and facts; that the absence of petitioner was , neither wilful nor intentional rather, there was no absence as his learned counsel kept on appearing before the Court on each and every date of hearing, but due to inadvertence his presence could not be marked in the order sheet; that valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in the instant matter as the matter pertains to a valuable property; that non-appearance of the petitioner on the said of hearing is to be condoned in view of the affidavit sworn by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the petitioner; that the petitioner has also placed on record daily diary of the counsel which supports the petitioner but the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the same.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by defending the order/judgment passed by the Courts below and that the assertions by the petitioner are based on erroneous presumptions.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record annexed with this petition.
6. The impugned order was passed while disbelieving the affidavit of the petitioner as well as his learned counsel, which was not controverted by any other affidavit. The conduct of the petitioner is apparently casual for which he can be saddled. Valuable rights of the petitioner are at jeopardy.
The /is, otherwise, is to be decided on merits rather than knocking out on technicalities. This civil revision is, therefore, allowed, the impugned orders dated 07.07.2011 and 09 05.2011 passed by the Courts below are set aside and the application under Order IX, Rules 7 & 13, C.P.C. Is accepted subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/-. As the matter relates to the year 2008, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within 3 months positively.
Civil revision .