- (1.) Heard Sri Adnan Ahmad for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Unnao dated 29.5.2006 and the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao dated 31.3.2014.
(2.) By the impugned order the Court below has allowed the application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. and set aside the abatement caused for not taking steps for filing a substitution application within time due to death of the sole plaintiff.
(3.) One Dr. Heera Lal filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 284 of 1992) before the Court below. Dr. Heera Lal was murdered on 3.8.1993 and thereafter the suit was dismissed on 30.3.1994. Thereafter Gyanwati and others respondents-3 to 7 filed an application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C.(registered as Misc. Case No. 151 of 1996) for setting aside the order dated 30.3.1994 and restoring the suit to its original number alongwith an application for condonation of delay. It may be mentioned here that the contesting respondents have also filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 9, C.P.C., which was got dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. was heard by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), who by the impugned order dated 29.5.2006 held that as the contesting respondents have stated that they had no knowledge of the suit filed by Dr. Heera Lal as such the application could not be filed within time after dismissal of the suit in default. In such circumstances the application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. was within time from the date of the knowledge. He, accordingly, set aside the order dated 30.3.1994 on the cost of Rs. 300/- and restored the case to its original number and in exercise of his suo motu power he set aside the abatement, if any. The petitioner filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge by order dated 31.3.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed.;