NARENDRA SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM SINGH
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Ghanshyam Singh and Others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Plaintiff/petitioner filed Suit No. 85 of 2007 "Narendra Singh Vs. Ghanshyam Singh & others" in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. The case was listed for hearing on 15.05.2012, on which day, none of the parties appeared before the Court below. On that, day, the case was called out repeatedly, but when none appeared for the parties, the Civil Judge (J.D.), Rudrapur dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. for recalling the order-dated 15.05-2012 and for restoring the suit to its original number. The said application was heard by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Rudrapur on 22.05.2012,-but the learned Civil Judge issued notices to the respondents for filing objection and fixed 31.07.2012 for objection/disposal of the said application. Against the order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Rudrapur, petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of the C.P.C., there is no need to issue notice to the other side. He contended that the Civil Judge (J.D.), Rudrapur erred in issuing notice to the opposite party and submitted that the Civil Judge should have decided the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 9 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. on that day itself. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment, "Ramchandra Ramaji Khatik and others Vs. Sahadeo Gopala Koshti and others", 1945 AIR(Nag) 185.
(3.) I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Few provisions of C.P.C. are necessary for deciding the issue involved.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.