148 Supplementary HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 170/2025 CM No. 2517/2025 Mst. Zeba and Ors. ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Suhail Mehraj, Adv. V/s Mst. Jana ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 02.05.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate) Pulwama whereby the learned trial court has refused to set aside the exparte proceedings initiated against the petitioners in a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners on 17.11.2015. 2. Heard and considered. 3. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners for impugning the order passed by the learned trial Judge is that the petitioners/defendants were not informed by their counsel about the progress of the case and that they were under the P a g e | 2 CM(M) No. 170/2025 CM No. 2517/2025 impression that their case is being defended by the counsel engaged by them. 4. If we have a look at the impugned order, it is recorded therein that the petitioners/defendants were in the first instance set exparte on 20.05.2015, whereafter exparte proceedings were set aside on 06.08.2015. Again on 17.11.2015 the petitioners/defendants were set exparte. It is also record in the impugned order that the petitioners/defendants approached the court for setting aside exparte proceedings initiated on 17.11.2015, only on 01.01.2025 i.e, after a lapse of more than 9 years. 5. A litigant who does not pursue his case for more than 9 years, cannot seek setting aside of exparte proceedings by taking a plea that he was under the impression that his counsel is prosecuting the case on his behalf. It is correct that a litigant trusts his counsel and the Advocate engaged by a litigant is expected to pursue the case on behalf of his client diligently but it is equally true, that a litigant is expected to remain in constant touch with his counsel to know about the progress of his case. The fact that the petitioners/defendants have not approached their counsel for more than 9 years to know about the progress of their case, shows P a g e | 3 CM(M) No. 170/2025 CM No. 2517/2025 that they have been absolutely lethargic and negligent in pursuing their case. They cannot, after a lapse of nine years pray for setting aside of exparte proceedings. The fact that on an earlier occasion also the petitioners were set exparte which order came to be set aside later on, reflects their negligent conduct. Under these circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly refused to set aside the exparte proceedings. 6. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is perfectly in accordance with law and does not call for any interference from this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 02.05.2025 Aasif