SAYED JIYAULLAH Vs. MUNESHWAR CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS is an application by the plaintiff against an order dated 23.8.2005 passed by Sub Judge 1st, Siwan in Misc. Case No. 22/2002 passed under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC recalling the ex parte judgment and decree. The said order was passed on an application by the defendant. The Court before passing the impugned order gave full liberty to adduce evidences. In sub -stance the case of the defendant -opposite party was that he was wrongly informed about the date of the case in between which the proceedings were concluded. Apparently this may appear to be slightly unnatural that for one date the proceedings are concluded but a reference to the ordersheet would show that it is virtually for one date's absence the proceeding seems to be concluded. The petitioner has enclosed the ordersheet. A reference to the ordersheet shows that on 27.9.2001 the trial court noted that as summons had been issued and not returned unserved within thirty days it will be deemed to be served, had fixed 9.10.2001 as the next date. Curiously on the very next date i.e. 9.10.2001 which was the first date after deemed service of summons the proceedings were ordered to be ex -parte. Thereafter the court was busy. On 29.1.2002 two defendants appeared and filed application for recall of the ex -parte order. The matter was pending as the presiding officer of the court was transferred. On 14.6.2002 the new presiding officer ordered that the application for recall of ex -parte order would be heard on

(3.) HAVING heard the parties and examined the order impugned I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order.