PUSHPA AHUJA Vs. UMARDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN ex -parte decree was passed in favour of Sat Pal, the predecessor -in -interest of petitioners No.1 to 4 and petitioner No.5 on September 25, 1982. The predecessor -in -interest of the defendantrespondents filed an application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC when steps for execution of the decree were taken on February 9, 1996 and possession was delivered by executing the ex -parte decree. The application filed under Order 9 rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex -parte decree was dismissed by the trial Court , however, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the lower Court and the ex -parte decree vide order dated July24, 2009 directing the trial Court to enable the defendants - respondents and their successors to contest the suit by appearing before the trial Court.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Appellate Court, the plaintiff no.1 (represented by petitioners No.1 to 4) and plaintiff No.2 have preferred this revision petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the decree has actually been executed and the possession has been taken by the petitioners since long and that the defendant - respondents had been actually served with the summons and that they had intentionally evaded appearance before the trial Court in order to delay the execution of the decree going to be passed against them.