VISHWANATH Vs. KALICHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order dated 8.1.1997, passed by the District Judge, Morena, whereby application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C., filed by the appellants has been rejected.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellants filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents. The claim was denied. On 12.9.1994 the appellants did not appear. As a result, the suit was dismissed. An application for restoration of the suit was filed on the ground that appellant/plaintiff No.1 Vishwanath, who was prosecuting the case out of the plaintiffs, suddenly fell sick from 10.9.94 to 19.9.94 and therefore, he could not inform his counsel. The other plaintiffs had gone out of station on account of urgent work. This application was opposed by the otherside. The court -below has rejected the application holding that it has not been proved that appellant No. 1 Vishwanath was sick and the other plaintiffs namely Denanath and Dharmendra Kumar had gone out of station. The Court below held that no sufficient cause has been shown for absence by the plaintiffs. As such, the application was rejected.

(3.) SHRI Ravi Tomar, Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that even the list does not survive. The property in question has been sold to brother -in -law of Vishwanath. Shri Lahoti is not in a position to make any statement to that effect as this point is being raised here in appeal.