mortgaging his immovable property with the bank. Admittedly, the respondent Shri Vishnu Prakash failed to repay the loan and was declared to be a defaulter and his loan became a non-performing asset. Thereafter, the Bank filed a suit for recovery of the loan amount and interest in the Court of the District Judge, by Jodhpur impleading the petitioner and the respondent No.2 Vishnu Prakash as defendants in the matter. After the summons were served upon the petitioner and the respondent No.2, an Advocate appeared on their behalf and filed memorandum of appearance on 20.08.2011 and assured the Court that he would be filing vakalatnama on their behalf. However, on the next date of hearing, nobody turned on behalf of the defendants, ex-parte proceedings were initiated. The advocate concerned moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC before the District Court on 13.12.2011 for setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings. The said application was dismissed on 17.05.2012 on account of non-appearance of the counsel. The suit was decreed on 25.05.2012 whereafter, the plaintiff Bank moved for execution of the decree. After receiving summons of the execution proceedings, the petitioner herein approached the trial court by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside of the ex-parte decree. The respondent Bank filed reply to the petitioner’s application specifically pleading that the averments made in the application were false and concocted. The summons of the suit were sent at the notified address of the petitioner who, initially engaged a counsel to represent in the proceeds but then, failed to appear for contesting the same and thus, the suit was rightly proceeded and decreed ex-parte. It was
