DEEPAK MITRA Vs. INDIAN PRESS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.

(2.) This revision challenges the order dated 17.5.2006 wherein, the petitioner's application under Order IX, Rule 7. C.P.C. for recalling the order of the court below in the suit to proceed ex parte, has been rejected.

(3.) The plaintiff-respondent opposite parties had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The summons were issued to the defendant No. 1, who is the applicant also. After the service of summons, when the defendants did not appear, the suit was directed to proceed ex parte and it was proceeding as such, while the petitioner's application for recalling the order for ex parte hearing was moved. The said application was resisted by the other side and the court below, after having concluded that the stage of ex parte hearing was over by that time, and the application was not maintainable under Order IX, Rule 7, C.P.C., it accordingly rejected the prayer.