SUNITA Vs. BALRAM LALWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FINAL arguments heard with the consent of parties. The Plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed a suit for eviction etc., against the original defendant Ramesh Kumar Ahuja. The said defendant Ramesh Kumar Ahuja died during pendency of the suit. An application for substitution of his legal representatives in his place was filed, which was allowed by the trial Court. The petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of Ramesh Kumar Ahuja.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, for setting aside ex parte proceedings which had taken place in the suit in her absence. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of substitution of legal representatives was never served on the petitioner, and therefore, she was entitled to oppose the application and relegate the case to the stage of substitution of legal representatives in the suit.

(3.) IN view of the above, the impugned order, rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, of the petitioner one of the joint tenants does not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to partake in the proceedings of the suit from the present stage. Accordingly, this revision as well as M(C) P. No. 1708/2000 stand dismissed.