PRAMELA AND P. ANAND RAJ Vs. M/S. ALAGIRI POLY PACK PRIVATE LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956 NO. 225, 12TH CROSS STREET WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE-560 004 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR S. VENKATACHALAPATHY SETTY AND OTHERS@

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by Defendants 6 and 7 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 2052/1993 passed by the City Civil Court, Bangalore City. Respondent No. 1 is the Plaintiff. Initially Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining the Appellants herein from Interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 3 acres 3 guntas of land in Sy. No. 46/3B of Hongasandra Village of Beguru Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Notices were served on Defendants 6 and 7. Notices were also served on the other Defendants and all of them have remained exparte. Ultimately, Defendants 1 to 5 and 8 filed applications for setting aside the order placing them exparte. The said applications were allowed. However, Defendants 1 to 5 and 8 compromised the matter with the Plaintiff. Defendants 6 and 7 i.e., the Appellants herein also filed an application for setting aside the exparte order, But, no order was passed on the said application till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) HOWEVER , the Plaintiff filed an application for amendment of plaint for converting the suit for injunction into the suit for possession. Notice of that application was served on Defendants 6 and 7. On the very day itself, Defendants 6 and 7 filed application for setting aside the exparte order. The matter was adjourned to 20.7.2004. On that day, Defendants 6 and 7 filed their statement of objections to the amendment application filed by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff remained absent on that day. Thus, the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 came to be dismissed for non -prosecution. Subsequently, after several adjournments, on 23.11.2004, Plaintiff filed application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to restore the amendment application. According to the Appellants herein the said application was not served on the Defendants and therefore they did not have any opportunity to oppose the said application. Ultimately, the application for amendment was allowed on 28.7.2005. The matter was adjourned from time to time. On 8.12.2005 the Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 12 for amending the plaint once again. Copy of the said application was also not served on Defendants 6 and 7, Appellants herein. However, the said application was allowed on 21.1.2006. The order sheet dated 21.1.2006 maintained by the Court below reveals that the matter was adjourned to 3.2.2006 for filing additional written statement, if any. However, the additional written statement was not filed. Subsequently, the Plaintiff examined its witness and the suit is decreed based on the material on record.

(3.) SRI . Shekhar Shetty, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 argued in support of the impugned judgment by contending that the notices were served on the Appellants herein from time to time and that their advocate appeared before the Court below.