MAHENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendants, an order under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, C. P. C. , granting temporary injunction had been passed by the learned trial Court. The petitioners moved an application under Order 39 (4) of the C. P. C. for vacation of the temporary injunction. The application was fixed for hearing on 9. 8. 1989 on which date none appeared on behalf of the petitioners who were the applicants in that case and the learned trial Court directed that the proceedings against the petitioners be taken exparte. On the same date an application was moved by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code read with Sec. 151 stating that the petitioners' learned counsel was busy in some other Court and prayed that exparte order be set aside. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the application and set aside the exparte order subject to payment of Rs. 15/-as costs. The respondent-plaintiff challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Gangapurcity, who after hearing the appeal has, vide the impugned order dated 10. 11. 1989, accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court and had dismissed the application moved by the petitioners under Order 39 (4) of the Code which was not the subject matter of the appeal. Hence, this revision petition by the petitioners.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.