BABU RAM Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 9-1-2008 passed by the court below in misc. appeal no. 127 of 2006 which arose out of proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. This is plaintiff's writ petition. The plaintiff instituted suit no. 16 of 1994 for cancellation of the sale date dated 17-11-1986. In the said suit, notices were served on the defendants by publication. As none turned up, the suit was decreed exparte by the order dated 15-3-1997. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree was filed by the defendants of the suit which was rejected by the trial court, but on appeal, it has been allowed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants were very well served with the summons and notices and as such, there was no justification for the appellate court to recall the exparte decree and restore the suit to its original number.

(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed accordingly. However, it is provided that the trial court will do good by deciding the suit expeditously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order, provided the parties cooperate.