1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R. A.O. NO. 19 OF 2007 1. Smt. Shakuntalabai w/o Sadashivrao Muratkar, aged 67 years, Occupation : Household, 2. Kamlesh Sundarlal Patel, aged 29 years, Occupation : Agriculturist 3. Anil Bansilal Datale, aged 42 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, all r/o Pandhari, Tq. Anjangaon, District Amravati. ... APPELLANTS.  VERSUS - Vijay Sadashivrao Muratkar, aged 38 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, r/o Pandhari, Tq. Anjangaon, District Amravati. ... RESPONDENT. ..... Mr. S.A. Gordey Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent. .,... 2 CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. RESERVED : 06.08.2008. PRONOUNCED ON : .08.2008. J U D G M E N T : The appellants have challenged the order dated 28.2.2007 made by Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Daryapur, in Regular M.J.C. No.9 of 2007 by which the said Court rejected the application tht was filed by the appellants for setting aside ex parte judgment against them. 2. The respondent has filed Special Civil Suit No.1 of 1999 for declaration and partition. In that suit the appellants appeared and file written statement on 2.8.1997 and thereafter did not bother to appear before the trial Court to contest the suit. Consequently, the suit was decreed ex parte on 9.12.2005. The appellants filed First Appeal No.388 of 2006 in this Court but it was withdrawn on 14.12.2006. Thereafter on 2.1.2007 the appellants filed proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree on the 3 ground that the appellants had no information frrom their counsel about the progress of the suit and, in fact, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned counsel appearing for the appellants had expired. The application was opposed by the respondent and finally the trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence this appeal. 3. Mr.Gordey, learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently argued in support of the appeal that valuable civil rights of the appellants were involved in the suit for declaration and partition, but the suit came to be decided ex parte without the appellants being allowed to defend the suit. The counsel for the appellants had not informed them about the progress of the suit and that is why the appellants were deprived of valuable opportunity of defending the suit. He further pointed out that in fact the counsel in the trial Court who was looking after the case of the appellants had expired. He, therefore, submitted that 4 the reasons furnished by the appellants were bona fide, genuine and they should have been allowed to participate in the suit, by setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 9.12.2005. In the alternative, he submitted that the appellants may be allowed to take such other remedy as are available in law. 4. Per contra, Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent, opposing the appeal, argued that after filing of written statement the appellants even did not bother to enquire about the progress of the suit, as can be seen from the fact that for long six years the suit was pending in the court and practically the appellants abandoned the suit. The suit was filed in the year 1999 and was decreed after six years and by now valuable rights have crystalized in favour of the respondent. No evidence was tendered before the trial court in support of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code. There was no material to accept the case of the appellants. He, therefore, prayed for 5 dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and also gone through the record. At the outset, looking to the application that was filed by the appellants under Order IX Rule 13, I find that the pleadings in the application are not specific and adequate. That apart, the application is silent about the death of the counsel and even the name of the counsel who, according to them, did not inform the progress of the suit. There is no pleading whatsoever in this application as to what the appellants did after filing of the written statement till the passing of the ex parte judgment and decree, that was a period of almost six years and it is unbelievable that the counsel did not inform the appellants about absenteeism for a period of six years. It is very easy to say that the counsel had failed in not informing the client about the progress of the suit. That apart, it is worthy to note that the appellants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of 6 their application and preferred to keep quiet. The trial court could not have taken the averment in the application to be the evidence, particularly when the delay was of more than six years. The decree-holders cannot be asked to litigate and re-litigate in the court for the fault of a negligent party. The appellants, therefore, did not make out any case for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. No fault could be found out with the impugned judgment and decree. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Interim orders made by this Court on 7.3.2007 stand vacated. No costs. JUDGE /TA/ 7