OM PRAKASH Vs. SRIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this revision petition came up for orders on the respondents' application for vacation of ex parte stay order dt. 8. 7. 97 but, this revision petition having been pending since 1997 at the joint request of both the parties the matter was heard as to the maintainability of the revision petition itself.

(2.) BY this revision petition having been filed by the defendants the order dt. 9. 8. 88 of the learned Munsif Srimadhopur in Civil Misc. Case No. 25/77, dismissing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by Om Prakash, Suja Devi and Geeta Devi (defendants) which stood confirmed by the appellate court (ADJ Neemkathana) in CMA No. 36/88, has been challenged.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders of two courts below which have concurrently concluded that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not maintainable so as to review/set aside the ex parte decree as the applicants have failed to satisfy that they had been prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing or that the summons were not duly served.