RAJU RAJAK Vs. JOKULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission.

(2.) VIDE present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners -plaintiffs call in question following orders -

(3.) PETITIONERS filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the said order -dated 8.5.2012 on the ground that the date of case was not noted by the counsel as a result whereof he could not pursue the same. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners did not file any affidavit of his counsel to substantiate the claim that it was because of mistake of the counsel that amendments could not be incorporated, trial Court vide order -dated 30.10.2013 declined to interfere with the order of dismissal by rejecting application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC by further taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shiv Cotex v Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited : (2011) 9 SCC 678. Aggrieved, petitioners preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c) CPC against the said order of dismissal of application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. The Appellate Court also concurred with the finding by the trial Court, holding -