GOPI CHAND GOYAL Vs. NET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the Plaintiff in whose favour the suit had been decreed ex parte on 15 -1 -1965. An application for setting aside the decree Under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the Defendant on 13 -3 -1965. This application was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 14 -4 -1965. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Applicant urged that no service of notice of the application Under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure was made on his client and that the Applicant having come to know about the application on the very date, which was fixed for its hearing, went to the court, but on account of certain reasons he was unable to attend the court at the time when the application was taken up for hearing. From the record of the case it does not appear that any notice was served on the Plaintiff before the passing of the order dated 14 -4 -1965. Under Order IX, Rule 14, it was incumbent on the court to see that the notice of the application Under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure was served on the opposite party before any order setting aside the decree was passed. Apart from other arguments, this argument which has been advanced by the learned Counsel that the ex parte decree was set aside without effecting service on the Plaintiff as required Under Order IX, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure by itself is sufficient to set aside the order against which the present revision has been filed.

(2.) I , therefore, allow the revision, set aside the order dated 14 -4 -1965 and direct the trial court to hear and decide the application filed by Net Ram Defendant Under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure after serving notice of the application on the Plaintiff and after affording him an opportunity to contest the application. However, in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.