AJODHYA DEI Vs. BRAJAMOHAN DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER refusing to recall an earlier order is the subject matter of this Civil Revision.

(2.) PETITIONER filed an application for being added as a party which was allowed by order dated 4 -8 -1981 and time was granted to file the written statement on 17 -8 -1981. Petitioner applied for extension of time to file the written statement which was rejected and the addition of Petitioner as a party was also recalled. On 24 -8 -1981 which was not a date fixed for the suit Petitioner filed an application for recalling the older dated 17 -8 -1981. Neither any application for advancing the date was filed nor copy of the application for recalling the earlier order was served on the Plaintiff. Along with the application, the written statement was filed by the Petitioner. On 1 -9 -1981 the written statement was not accepted and the order was also not recalled and the suit was decreed.

(3.) MR . Deepak Misra, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff opposite parties submitted that the suit having been decreed, the interim order ought not to be interfered with since the Petitioner could have preferred an appeal against the decree where the impugned order could have been challenged under Section 105, Civil Procedure Code read with Order 43, Rule 1 -A, Civil Procedure Code If the Petitioner would have continued as a party in the suit, I would not have interfered with the impugned order since she would have a right of appeal where the impugned order could have been challenged. Having been taken out of the record as a party, the right of appeal was taken away. Thus, the prejudice to the Petitioner cannot be removed unless the order is set aside.