UPENDRANATH SAMANTASINGHAR Vs. BIKASH CHANDRA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment/order dated 17.12.2013 rendered in W.P. (C) No. 1754 of 2012 interfering with the order dated 21.01.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar, in CMA No. 1/12 arising out of C.S. No. 42/95 directing the respondent no. 2 herein (plaintiff) to delete the name of respondent no. 1 from the said application (CMA No. 1/12) filed to restore CMA Nos. 250 and 251 of 2009.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. A.R. Dash, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.C. Sarangi, learned for respondent no. 2 and Mr. K. Jena, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.

(3.) BY order dated 21.1.2012 CMA No. 1/12 was disposed of by the learned trial Court by requiring respondent no. 2 (plaintiff) to delete the name of respondent no. 1 from the cause title of the application. As the text of the order dated 21.1.2012 would reveal, the learned trial court was of the view that in terms of the Code it was the plaintiff alone who could file an application for restoration of the suit dismissed for default under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and that such application under the provisions of the Code by any one else was not maintainable. It was held as well that no other person could also to be joined with the plaintiff in such an application.