MAYA DEVI Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed by the plaintiff petitioners against the order dated 16-11- 2000 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 34/1990. Under this order the learned trial Court has granted the application filed by the defendant non- petitioner under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC. Parties hereinafter referred as the plaintiff and defendant.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the suit for permanent injunction was filed by late Laxman Singh, predecessor-in-title of the petitioners against the defendant non- petitioner. The suit was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 10-5-1999. As on that date both the parties nor their Counsel were present, the suit was dismissed in default. The application filed by the plaintiff under Order 9, Rule 9 of the CPC was granted and the suit was ordered to a restored to its original number.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the notices with copy of this application of the plaintiff was sent to the Counsel of the defendant. That is not sent for personal service upon the defendant. The Counsel had refused to take the notice on the ground that he had left this brief long back. Another Counsel has been engaged by the defendant. This refusal of the notices by the counsel was taken to be sufficient service of the defendant and the application aforestated has been granted. Not only that application of the plaintiff was allowed, but for non-appearance of the defendant or his counsel, the court has ordered to proceed ex parte against him.