KANWAR JOHAR Vs. RAMEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. With the consent of the parties, arguments have been heard and these petitions are being disposed of finally.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the defendants on the allegations as set out in the plaint. On 24/9/1990, the suit was dismissed in default. On an application having been made by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit, the suit was restored on 8/3/1991. Before the restoration of the suit, notice was issued to the defendants including defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4, it appears, had refused to accept notice and he was, therefore, proceeded ex-parte.

(3.) Since he had already been proceeded ex-parte, no further notice was sent to defendant No. 4 after the restoration of the suit. Due to non-appearance of the defendants, ex-parte decree was passed against them on 22/2/1992. Defendant No. 4 moved an application for setting aside ex-parte decree passed against him, however, this application was dismissed in default on 26/9/1994. An application was filed by defendant No.4 under Order IX Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code (sic.) for restoration of the application under Order IX Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code which was dismissed in default on 26/9/1994. Before this application could be decided, defendant No. 4 expired on 13/12/1994. No application was filed by any of the parties to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased defendant No. 4. The Court in spite of it being informed that respondent No. 4 had expired, by order dated 27/1/1997 dismissed the application after holding that defendant No.4 was not serious about his case and the Court did not find any merit in the application of the said defendant. Legal heirs of defendant No. 4 moved an application on ,22/7/1997 for review of the order dated 27/1/1997 on the ground that they were not aware of the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of the Civil Judge and they came to know of the proceedings only in the month of July, 1997. This application was dismissed by the Court by its order dated 25/7/1997 holding that the Court did not find any error apparent on record so far as order dated 27/1/1997 was concerned.