KALI RAM Vs. SHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 is to the order dtd. 13/9/2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat whereby the appeal of defendants nos. 28 to 32 and 34 to 42 was allowed and the matter was remitted to the trial Court to decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after framing of issues and after affording one effective opportunity to each of the parties.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued on the strength of the judgment of the Apex Court in Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade P. Ltd. Vs. AMCI (I) Pvt. Ltd. and another 2009(17) SCC 796 to submit that it is not necessary for the trial Court to frame issues once there was sufficient material to show that the said defendants had been served and chosen to stay away from the proceedings. It is further submitted that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was time barred and the application was rightly dismissed by the trial Court vide order dtd. 16/8/2010 and the appeal was wrongly allowed by the Lower Appellate Court.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner since the matter would be 2015.01.14 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh *** thrashed out after taking into consideration the evidence which would be recorded to find out whether the defendants/applicants had been duly served or not and thus supports the order of the Lower Appellate Court.