BHAJAN LAL Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 60 and 61 of 1980, as the common points of law and facts are involved in both the cases.

(2.) The plaintiff respondent filed two suits against the petitioner-defendants seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction in the plots in dispute and to remove the well already built therein. The notices in the suits were served on the defendant-petitioners. They appeared in Court and filed written statements controverting the pleas raised in the plaints. The plaintiff-respondents filed replication. The learned trial Court framed issues in both the cases and adjourned the cases to 8th of September, 1979, for recording the plaintiff's evidence. In the meantime, the petitioner-defendants filed two applications for vacation of the ex parte injunction issued against them. These applications were fixed for 27th August, 1979. The plaintiff-respondents were also required to file their replies, if any, to these applications. The learned trial Court took up the cases on 27th August, 1979, but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner-defendants. He ordered that the defendant-petitioners be proceeded against ex parte in both the suits. Two applications were filed in the trial court for setting aside the order dated 27th August, 1979 and allowing the petitioner-defendants to join the proceedings and contest the suits. The plaintiff-respondents stoutly opposed the grant of these applications and the learned trial Judge vide his order dated 6th November, 1979 dismissed the two applications.

(3.) Mr. V.M. Jain has strenuously argued that the main case had been fixed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff on 8th September, 1979. The trial Court had posted the application for vacation of stay only for 27th August, 1979. The main cases were not to be heard on that day. Consequently, if nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner-defendants only their applications for vacation of stay could be dismissed in default. Since the suits were not fixed for any proceedings on that date no orders for taking ex parte proceedings could be passed. It was the duty of the learned trial Court to have allowed the petitioner-defendants to defend cases on the 8th of September, 1979 and thereafter. The learned trial Court by passing these orders and then by not allowing the petitioner-defendants to defend their cases had acted with material irregularity.