Heard Mr.Zubin F. Bharda, learned advocate for the petitioner.
It is submitted by him that the findings of the Trial Court, as mentioned in the impugned order are to the effect that, the period of limitation would begin from 13.06.2011, when the order to proceed with the suit ex-parte was passed. It is submitted that the delay should have been calculated from the date of passing of the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2013. It is further submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner is dated 12.09.2011, whereas the order to proceed ex-parte in the absence of the petitioner is dated 13.06.2011, that is, before the issuance of notice. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not had any opportunity to defend the case, therefore, the impugned order being based on a wrong premise deserves to be stayed.
Issue Notice returnable on 15.10.2013.
Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph-8(B) is granted, till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service is also permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 2 of 2