After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Admittedly, the petitioner was served in the suit and he was even represented by his counsel initially, but later on stopped appearing. Under the circumstances, the court did not have any other option but to direct ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner. After considering the ex-parte evidence led by the respondents-plaintiffs, the suit was decreed. Though it is sought to be claimed by the petitioner that his counsel kept him in dark and had not been appearing in the court, though he was present on each and every date of hearing, but the fact remains that immediately after the ex-parte decree was passed against the petitioner on 15.3.1999, the application for setting aside thereof was filed in the court on 9.4.1999, which was rightly dismissed by the court below on 24.1.2006, as the petitioner himself did not appear in support of the case set up by him. Rather, only two witnesses were produced. Here also, the fault is sought to be put on a counsel representing the petitioner. The appeal was filed along with application for permission to lead additional evidence. The appeal was dismissed by the learned court below. However, now the stand sought to be taken is that the application was not considered. The application may have been filed along with the appeal, but once it is not pressed by the counsel at the time of hearing, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take a stand before this court that as the application was not considered, hence, the order suffers from illegality.
