PARKASHO DEVI Vs. DIWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been moved by petitioner/defendant No.11 (Parkasho Devi) impugning the legality of order dated 06.05.2019, rendered by trial Court, in terms of which, petitioner/defendant No.11 was proceeded ex parte. Further petitioner/defendant No.11 has also impugned the legality of order dated 09.10.2019 rendered by trial Court, in terms of which, application moved by petitioner/defendant No.11 for setting aside order dated 06.05.2019 whereby she was proceeded ex parte and to join her in the proceedings of civil suit, has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.11 at the very outset has urged that no process for summoning of petitioner/defendant No.11 by way of substituted service i.e. beat of drum (munadi) was ever issued for 06.05.2019, whereas trial Court, vide order dated 06.05.2019, while taking notice of previous process, if any, had wrongly proceeded petitioner/defendant No.11 ex parte. He further urged that even otherwise application was moved at the instance of petitioner/defendant No.11 before the trial Court to set aside impugned order dated 06.05.2019 and to join her in the proceedings of civil suit but that application was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 09.10.2019 and that too without any cogent reasons. He further urged that since no process was issued for 06.05.2019 to seek appearance of petitioner/defendant No.11 in the Court, impugned orders dated 06.05.2019 and 09.10.2019, are liable to be set aside, so that petitioner/defendant No.11 may join the proceedings and defend the civil suit.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.11 and have carefully gone through the contents of petition, impugned orders as well as record of the case.