MANUNKHATOON Vs. USMAN MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Since these two civil revision-applications are interconnected arising out of the same suit, and since common questions of law and facts are involved, besides they were also directed to be heard together, and have been heard together, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The plaintiff's are the petitioners who are purchasers from defendent No. 2 It appears that defendant No. 2 died but no application for substitution was filed From the order dated 24th May, 1986, it appears that summons and cards were served on the defendants. Hearing of the suit also started ex parte On 17th June. 1986, on behalf of defendant first party, an application was filed for recalling the order of exparte hearing which was allowed by order dated 26-6-1986. The defendant first party also filed a petition for time for filing written statement which was filed on 11-8-1986 No written statement was filed by Defendant No. 2. On 7-10-1986, an application was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 22, Rule 4 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that it appears from the written statement that defendant No 2 had died and hence his name be expunged. A rejoinder was filed by the defendants on 14-11-1986, On 3rd April, 1986, both parties were present. The petition dated 7-10-1986 filed by the plaintiffs was heard and allowed and the name of defendant No. 2 was directed to be expunged by the office. On 20-4-1987, an application was filed on behalf of the defendants 1st party to recall the order dated 3rd April, 1987. On 2nd June, 1987, a rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs. The petition dated 20th April, 1987 filed by the defendants was heard and allowed holding that the order dated 3rd April, 1987 was passed without considering the rejoinder of the defendant 1st party and thus it would be expedient to recall the same, subject to the payment of cost of Rs 20/-. Civil Revision No. 1433 of 1987 is directed against the order dated 6th July, 1987. The petition dated 7-10-1986 was further heard and dismissed by order dated 24-8-1987 holding as follows : -

(3.) Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in both cases, submits as follows :-