Hari Nath Tilhari, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed challenging the order dated 10.2.1993, passed by learned Civil Judge, Unnao in Regular Suit No. 56 of 1989 whereby the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application of defendant No. 2 i.e. Sri Vijay Kumar Dhariwal, opposite party No. 1 in the Civil Revision, whereby defendant No. 1 had prayed that the orders passed under Order 9 rule 6 CPC dated 29.1.90 and 17.3.92 be recalled and that the applicant may be allowed to participate in the suit and be heard in answer to the suit as if he has appeared on the date fixed for his appearance so that he may be able to file the written statement and plaintiff be directed to supply a copy of the plaint to him. The learned court below after considering the affidavits of both the parties has allowed the application taking the view that the exparte proceedings of the earlier date i.e. 29.1.90 or 17.3.92 if are allowed to continue, the defendant will suffer irreparable loss but if that order is withdrawn then plaintiff will not suffer such a Joss, because of delay, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
(2.) HAVING recorded these findings, the learned Trial Court allowed the application dated 5.12.1992 and 25.9.1992 and set aside the order dated 17.3.92 and 29.1.90 subject to payment of the costs of Rs. 100/ - Feeling aggrieved from that order, plaintiff has come up in revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) I have heard Shri P.N. Mathur, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Counsel for opposite parties, who appear for defendant No. 2 i.e. opposite party No. 1 at whose instance and on whose application, orders dated 29.1.90 and 17.3.92 have been set aside.;