JAGARDEO Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused counter and rejoinder-affidavits. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 are defendants in O.S. No. 416 of 1993 which has been filed by respondent No. 1, Mohan Lal and is pending before Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division (III), Jaunpur. In the suit trial court on 4.1.1999 passed an order to the effect that the suit shall proceed ex parte against petitioners-defendants. Subhadra Devi defendant/respondent No. 2 had filed written statement in the suit on 3.5.1993. However, petitioners who are also defendants in the suit did not file any written statement. Petitioners-defendants filed an application before the trial court for recalling of the order dated 4.1.1999. In the application they stated that Subhadra Devi defendant No. 1 respondent No. 2 was doing pairvi on behalf of all the defendants, however, keeping the petitioners in dark she filed written statement only on her behalf and in view of this order dated 4.1.1999 was passed which deserved to be recalled. Recall application was filed on 6.7.2000. Trial court on 1.4.2004 dismissed the recall application by a cryptic order. Against the said order Revision No. 93 of 2004 was filed which was dismissed by A.D.J., Court No. IV, Jaunpur on 21.4.2005, hence this writ petition.

(2.) It has been stated at bar that evidence has not yet been recorded in the suit.

(3.) The revisional court in its detailed judgment has observed that sufficient explanation for non-appearance in the suit for seven years has not been given by the petitioners. However, as evidence has not yet started hence it was in the interest of justice that petitioners should have been permitted to file written statement and participate in the proceeding on payment of heavy cost.