JUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 28.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2000 allowing the application filed by the opposite party under Order 9 Rule. 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him in T.S.No. 16/290 of 96/92.
2. The petitioner, who is plaintiff before the Trial Court, had filed the suit for a decree of eviction and delivery of possession. The plaintiff-petitioner also prayed for recovery of arrear rent and mesne profits. The opposite party, who is defendant in the suit, had entered appearance but subsequently, when the case was posted for hearing, he failed to appear before the Court and was set ex parte. Thereafter, the ex parte decree was passed on 17.2.2000. An application was filed by the opposite party under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the said ex parte decree, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 2000. The said petition having been allowed in the impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Shri Sen, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1992 and after 8 years, the ex parte decree was passed. Though the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. had been filed immediately thereafter, the opposite party did not take any steps for early disposal of the said petition and six years after filing of the application, the Court has allowed the prayer causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. Shri Sen, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was allowed solely on the ground that there is a prayer for realization of more than Rs. 7,00,000/- and that the Court could not have allowed the petition merely because there is a prayer for realization of arrear rent and mesne profits.
4. Though notice was issued to the opposite party and it has been served, no one has appeared for the opposite party.
5. Perused the impugned order. The Trial Court has observed that on the date, the opposite party was set ex parte, he was suffering from ailments as is evident from the medical certificate and, therefore, there was sufficient cause for non-appearance on the said date and, accordingly, allowed the application. It was contended by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that for the purpose of hearing of the suit, the presence of the Managing Director, who is the applicant, was not necessary and any of the officer could have represented the opposite party before the trial Court for the purpose of hearing of the suit. The opposite party is a private limited company and has to be represented through its Managing Director. In view of the above, it cannot be said that presence of the Managing Director of the opposite party’s company is not required for the purpose of hearing of the suit. In course of hearing of the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., in order to support the stand that the Managing Director of the opposite party’s company was suffering from ailments on the date the company was set ex parte, not only a medical certificate in support of such claim was produced but also P.W.1 was examined to prove the ailments as well as medical certificate. Rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the petitioner. The Court on the face of the deposition of P.W.1 as well as medical certificate held that there was sufficient reason for the Managing Director of the opposite party’s company in not being able to appear in the Court on the date he was set ex parte. I do not find any justification to interfere with such a finding. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct in saying that the ground on which the application has been allowed is that the plaintiff-petitioner has claimed more than Rs. 7,00,000/- towards arrear rent and mesne profits and that is not the sole ground on which the application has been allowed.
6. The contention of Shri Sen, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the Misc. Case was kept in pending for six years at the instance of the opposite party does not appear to be entirely correct. If such a petition was pending for consideration it was also the duty of the Court to see that the petition is disposed of as early as possible. In view of the above, the opposite party alone cannot be blamed for delay in disposal of the said Misc. Case. However, the suit having been filed in the year 1992 and an ex parte decree having been passed in February, 2000, I am of the view that if the application is to be allowed and the ex parte decree is to be set aside, the petitioner should be compensated accordingly. I, therefore while declining to interfere with the order setting aside the ex parte decree, enhance the cost from Rs. 300/- (three hundred) to Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand). The cost be deposited within eight weeks from today in the trial Court and after deposit of the said cost, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner.
The writ application is disposed of.