ROSHAN LAL BHARDWAJ Vs. SANJAY SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Ekta Sood appearing vice Mr. S.V. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that after the passing of the impugned order dated 1st October, 2004, the Petitioner had filed a fresh suit against the Respondent in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act with respect to the same subject-matter as was covered in the suit which was dismissed for default of appearance vide the impugned order dated 1st October, 2004. According to her, therefore, she is prosecuting the present petition qua theaforesaid impugned order not for the purpose of restoration of the suit but only for the limited purpose of this Court deciding the legality and validity of the aforesaid impugned order qua the imposition of costs of Rs. 1,000/- while dismissing the suit of the Petitioner on the ground of default of appearance.

(2.) As is clearly evident by a bare perusal of the impugned order, because of the non-appearance of any one on behalf of the Plaintiff, the learned Court below dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 2 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus:

(3.) Since in Rule 2 there is a clear reference to Order 9 Code of Civil Procedure, it shall be profitable to take note of Rule 8 of Order 9 Code of Civil Procedure which reads thus: