CHUNG CHENEOVA Vs. MAMA BENDRA CHANDER ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the opposite party.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that, by virtue of the impugned order, an application filed by the opposite party under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed behind the back of the petitioners, even without directing service of notice of the said application on them, removing the previous commissioner and appointing a new one.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that the impugned order amounted to violation of Order XXXIX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in so far as the court did not record any urgency whatsoever, which could defeat the purpose or object of making the order due to the delay in passing the same, before passing the order ex parte. It is argued that the petitioners were entitled to a notice before the previous commissioner was removed and a new commissioner was appointed.