DINANATH SAO Vs. DINANATH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who wants to review of the order of this Court dated 14.12.2004 passed in Civil Revision No. 1785 of 2003 which was allowed by the said order and the orders dated 5.8.2003 and 29.7.1999 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 37 of 1999 and Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1993 respectively, were set aside and the ex parte Judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 25 of 1986 was also set aside and the trial Court was directed to hear the Title Suit afresh and decide the same on merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law.

(2.) It may be pointed out that full length argument was made by the learned counsel for the parties whereafter the said Civil Revision was decided by the order under challenge in which all points were considered.

(3.) Now, this review petition has been filed on two grounds. Firstly, that in view of the latest amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. and in case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. no such revision petition was maintainable and if the, revision-petitioners were aggrieved they could have filled a petition in this Court under the provision of Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The second ground taken by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner is that even if such Civil Revision was maintainable, then also the provisions of Order V Rule 20 and Order IX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity) were not properly considered as in case of substituted service under the provision of Order ' V Rule 20 of the Code recording satisfaction by the Court was not necessary and furthermore the provision of Order IX Rule 6 of the Code was applicable only if the plaintiff appears and defendant does not appear, but here in the instant case, the defendant had appeared and hence there was no occasion for application of the provision of Order IX Rule 6 of the Code and the Miscellaneous Case was rightly dismissed.