SURAJDEO BHARTI Vs. BISHWANATH SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS is an application by the defendant, whose application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was rejected by the trial Court on the basis of judgment of this Court since reported in AIR 1991 Patna 60 (Satya Narayan Sah vs. Brij Gopal Mundra). The trial court held that in such a situation, a proceeding emanating from Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC, an application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC would not lie. This order the trial court passed on remand by this Court wherein he was directed to decide the question of maintainability. Equivalent Citation:2007 -PLJR -1 -31

(3.) IN that view of the matter I am left with no option but to set aside the and hold that an application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was maintainable and the trial court is thus directed to consider the same on merit and decide the case accordingly.