MANSUR ALI Vs. ERUMAPATTI TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the sole respondent was served through Court as early as 3.4.2002 and through the lower Court counsel, none appeared for the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioners filed O.S. No.526 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal for declaration of their title and for consequential injunction. THE respondent herein was served with the summons in the suit giving the date of hearing as 7.12.2000. THE respondent did not appear in the suit and ultimately, on 7.12.2000, they were set ex parte. THE other defendant in the suit appeared and contested the claim of the petitioners. Evidence was taken and after arguments were heard, the suit was listed for judgment on 21.9.2001. On that day, the respondent herein filed I.A. No.1042 of 2001 for setting aside the order dated 7.12.2000 setting the respondent herein ex parte. THE said application was allowed by the Court below by an order dated 1.10.2001, against which, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) IN such a case, the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohandra Kumar A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 993 held thatO.9, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code makes it clear that the said application can be entertained only when the suit is taken up for the purpose of hearing. If the hearing of the suit was already over, then, such application cannot be entertained. To extract the relevant portion, which is as follows: