- (1.) HEARD Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for revisionists, Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the present case are that the revisionists -plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 80 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow, thereafter an application has been moved with a prayer to proceed ex -parte against the defendant under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, allowed by order dated 07.03.2005.
(3.) ON 10.11.2015, defendant -respondent moved an application on 10.11.2005 for recall of the order dated 07.03.2005 to which objection has been filed by the revisionists -plaintiffs, allowed by order dated 23.12.2005 with a cost of Rs. 50/ - under challenge in the present civil revision. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for revisionists while challenging the impugned order submits that no sufficient reason/good cause has been shown by the defendant for his non -appearance in the matter in question, so, there is no justification or reason on the part of court below to pass the impugned order dated 23.12.2005 recalling the order dated 07.03.2005. In support of his argument he has placed reliance on the following judgments : - 1. Punjab National Bank Vs. Vijai Kumar Dhariwal and others, 1993 11 LCD 1177. 2. Prahlad Singh and another Vs. Niyaz Ahmad and others, 2000 18 LCD 757. 3. B. Madhuri Goud Vs. B. Damodar Reddy, 2012 12 SCC 693.;