N LAKSHMI RAO Vs. URMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 7.7.2007 passed by learned Court below by which application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC filed by plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 has been allowed.

(2.) Needless to say, a civil suit for declaration and injunction was filed by respondents no.1 and 2 which was dismissed in default on 28.6.2007 at 3.15 PM and the application to restore the suit was submitted at 4.00 PM on the same day which was also allowed by the Court below holding that the reasons so assigned are cogent and restored the suit. In this manner, this revision application has been filed by first defendant-applicant.

(3.) The sole contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that before allowing the application, respondent no.2 A Jagdish Rao who was defendant no.2 was not heard although Shri Rao, learned counsel submits that he was the attorney of respondent no.2. Since defendant no.2 A. Jagdish Rao did not assail the said point, on the said count I am of the view that this argument cannot be accepted. At this juncture Shri Rao, learned counsel for the applicant submits that without filing an affidavit in support of application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, the suit has been restored which is not at all permissible.