KANHAIYALAL Vs. RUKMANI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the order impugned the trial Court has rejected prayer of · the applicant/defendant made under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. for permission to file W.S. on the ground that the case against the applicant/defendant has not been proceeded ex -parte, but under Order 8, Rule 10 C.P.C.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , no judgment in terms of Rule 10 of Order 8 has been pronounced by the trial Court and instead the Court has proceeded to record evidence of the plaintiffs. Under the circumstance, as held by this Court in State of M.P. v. Ratanlal, 1983 M.P. Weekly Note 311 and Laik Khan v. Shri Narayan, 1997 Part -II, M.P. Weekly Note 116, permission to file W.S. could be grantd and delay in filing the W.S. could be compensated in terms of cost.

(3.) I make no order as to costs of this revision.