PRAMILA Vs. ALAGIRI POLYPACK PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matte is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 30/11/2016 passed on Mis.628/2011 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15), Bengaluru, rejecting the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that these appellants are arrayed as defendant Nos.6 and 7 before the Trial Court in O.S.No.2052/1993, wherein these appellants have been placed exparte and hence, they have filed an application before the Trial Court to set aside the exparte order by filing necessary application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. and no order has been passed on the said application. In the meanwhile, an application is also filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. and the same was dismissed and thereafter, one more application for restoration of the said application was filed and no opportunity was given to these appellants and ultimately, the suit was decreed. It is also contended that the same was challenged before this Court by filing R.F.A.No.2558/2006 and the same was disposed of on 11/8/2011, wherein liberty was given to the appellants herein to file an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. and accordingly, the present application is filed before the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the same on the ground that the defendants have admitted that the counsel on record in the original suit has not retired from the case and also specifically admitted that they have not at all insisted the Court to consider the application filed Order 9, Rule 7 of C.P.C. and these admissions found in the cross-examination of P.W.1 not helpful to the petitioners to allow the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners have not made out any ground to allow the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. cannot be invoked and therefore, rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.