JANGIR SINGH Vs. PREM MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 29.5.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Barnala, who partly allowed application of defendants No. 24, 31 and 40 under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC, and allowed then to join the proceedings of the case from that stage, i.e. 29.5.1999.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :-

(3.) WHAT is the position of law on this point has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh and others, (1998-1) 113 PLR 271 : 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 277 (SC) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that when a lawyer makes a statement before the trial court that he does not have any instruction on behalf of his client, in these circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the trial court to issue notice to the client so that he may be able to defend his case. In this case, when the ex-parte order dated 19.2.1998 was passed, the court did not issue notice to the defendants perhaps on the assumption that Shri R.L. Verma is also appearing on behalf of other defendants. This procedure adopted by the trial court is not in accordance with the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The moment the application under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC, was to be allowed by the trial court, the trial court ought to have given the opportunity to the applicants to file the written statement in order to contest the claim of the plaintiff. This procedure has not been adopted and, therefore, there is an illegality and impropriety on the part of the trial court.