CRP 339/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr M Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Ms K Sarma Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff Corporation. The petitioner, who is the defendant in Money Suit No.28/1993, by the pr esent petition, has challenged the order dated 24th February 2010 passed by lear ned Addl District Judge, (FTC) No.3, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc Appeal No.06/200 8 dismissing the appeal preferred by him challenging the order dated 29th March 2008 passed by learned Civil Judge No.2, Guwahati in Misc(J) Case No.189/2007 re jecting the petition filed by him under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the experte decree dated 21st August 2003 passed in the money suit filed by the present respondent. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though someti mes in the year 1993-1994 summons in MS No.28/1993 was served on the present pet itioner, he could not contest the suit by filing his written statement due to hi s illness and, only on 20th August 2007, on receipt of notice in the execution p roceeding initiated by the present respondent/plaintiff for execution of the dec ree passed, he came to know that the suit was decreed exparte on 21st August 200 3. According to learned counsel, thereafter also the petitioner fell ill and was treated at different hospitals outside the State of Assam, and his by-pass surg ery was performed at Wockhardt Hospital & Heart Institute, Bangalore in the year 2006. Learned counsel further submits that stating those grounds an applicatio n under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed before learned Court below, which was rejected by the order dated 29th March 2008, without considering the ailments of the pet itioner. Though an appeal was also preferred, the same has been dismissed withou t considering the contention of the petitioner that due to his illness he could not contest the proceeding and as such the exparte decree came to be passed. To a pointed query made, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the medical papers, in support of the contention that due to his illness the pe titioner could not contest the suit, which were supposed to be filed by learned counsel engaged by him on the date when Misc(J) Case No.189/2007 was taken up fo r hearing, which, however, were not filed. Learned counsel further submits that the documents that could not be filed are annexed with this present revision pet ition as Annexure-A series. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the experte decree may be set aside by setting aside the orders passed by learned Courts be low. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that even though the medical documents submitted by the petitioner, which are annexed as Annexure-A series to the present revision petition, are taken into account, it would appear that the petitioner was treated in the month of June 2006. But he did not contest the su it even admittedly after he was served with the summons of the suit sometimes in the year 1993-1994. According to learned counsel, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 has rightly been rejected by learned Courts below, so also the appeal by learned appellate Court. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Pe rused the materials made available including the order passed by learned trial C ourt and the order passed by learned appellate Court in appeal preferred by the present petitioner. It is not in dispute that MS No.28/1993 was instituted in the year 1993. The petitioner had received summons sometimes in 1993-1994. The documents, whic h were produced before this Court, which were not produced in the proceeding bei ng Misc(J) Case No.189/2007, reveal that the petitioner was treated at the Depar tment of Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgery, Wockhardt Hospital & Heart Institute , Bangalore in the month of June 2006. The documents, which are part of Annexure -A series, are all subsequent to the month of June 2006. The exparte decree was passed on 21st August 2003. The petitioner, having received summons sometimes in 1993-1994, chose to not contest the suit nor had filed written statement. He co uld not, even before this Court, produce any documents in support of his content ion that he was suffering from illness, since receipt of the summons in the suit . In view of the above, in my opinion, learned Courts below have rightly r ejected the prayer of the petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Hence this revision petition is dismissed. No costs.