JUDGMENT
Jasbir Singh, J.
1. Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.90,261/-. Defendant was proceeded ex parte and the trial Court below passed exparte order against him on 6.12.1995, which was followed by an ex parte decree on 15.1.1999. After passing of the ex parte decree, petitioner-plaintiff field an execution application, then the defendant-respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rules 8 and 13 read with Section 151 of CPC for setting-aside ex parte order and decree passed by the Court below. After recording evidence of both the parties, the trial Court declined to interfere on the ground that the application for setting aside ex parte decree has been moved beyond the period of limitation. Appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.
2. Appellate Court below, while allowing appeal, has come to a conclusion that at that time of filing of the suit, address of the defendant-respondent given was that of business premises instead of head-quarter. Court has relied upon the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure which makes it incumbent upon the plaintiff to sue the Company/Firm at the address where the head-quarter is situated. It has been found by the Court below that apart from sending notice through registered post, no ordinary process was issued at any time. Appellate Court below has also found that defendant-respondent is not at fault to move the application beyond the period of 30 days from the date, when it came to know about passing of exparte decree. Delay has been caused by the counsel and for counsels delay, parties are not to suffer. Opinion arrived at by the appellate Court seems to be justified. Dispute between the parties is required to be decided on merits. There may be exception to that rule when the parties are grossly negligent, which is missing in this case. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that ex parte decree dated 15.1.1990 has been set aside but no order has been made to make payment of costs. Be that as it may, counsel has failed to indicate any legal infirmity in the order passed by the appellate court, which necessitates any interference by this Hon’ble Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
3. However, the respondent is directed to make payment of Rs.2,500/- towards costs
to petitioner. Payment will be made on the next date fixed in the Court below.
