SANJJIV CHHABRA Vs. SURJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 17.3.1990 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi by which he dismissed an application of petitioner-defend ant 2 moved under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with costs. The application was moved for restoration of his application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts in brief are that respondent I who is the plaintiff before the trial Court has filed a suit for possession against the petitioner and respondent 2. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte in the proceedings on 10.11.1986. He had appeared through counsel on 30.6.1986 and absented from the proceedings on 10.11.1986. Thereafter, he moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code on 20.3.89 i.e. after more than 2 years and 4 months for setting aside ex-parte order against him. That petition was also dismissed for non prosecution on 20.7.1989.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that her three matters were listed that day before the trial Court and she was under an impression that her presence had been marked in this case also and so she left. It may be noted that the plaintiff's case is being supported by the petitioner before the the trial Court because even now learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent 2 does not oppose the restoration of the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code.