- (1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. By this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff-revisionist challenges an order dated 28th November, 1984, by which the court below allowed an application purporting to be (sic) under Order IX, Rule 7, C. P. C. and allowed the defendant-respondent to participate in the trial of the suit for specific performance which is said to have been ordered to proceed ex parte by an order dated 16th May, 1984. The court below in the order has stated that the defendant had not shown any sufficient reason for his absence on 16th May, 1984, yet in the interest of justice, it allowed the defendant's application subject to payment of Rs. 150 as costs and directed the defendant to file the expert's report within 15 days and fixed it for final hearing on 7th January, 1985.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed this revision petition challenging the said order and by an order dated 11th January, 1985, the proceedings in the court below were stayed and continued to remain stayed for about 11-1/2 years that have since elapsed. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that under Order IX, Rule 7, CPC, the court below could allow the defendant to be heard only if he had assigned good cause for his previous non- appearance and, as observed by the court below in the impugned order itself, no such cause was shown. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the revisionist, the court below had no jurisdiction to allow the defen dant to be heard. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent con tended that the application was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 150 as costs and the costs were paid to and accepted by the counsel for the plaintiff on the very next day, that is, 29th November, 1984, and, therefore, the plaintiff is debarred from challenging the same. In reply to the said argument, the counsel for the respondent contended that the acceptance of such costs will not validate the order. Provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure authorising the court to proceed ex parte are intended for avoiding delay. The provisions of Order IX, Rule 7, C. P. C. are intended for providing the parties a proper opportunity of being heard. It is now settled that a situation by which a party is denied opportunity of hearing should be avoided. In this case, the court below had allowed the defendant to take part in the proceedings by an impugned order that was passed more than 11-1/2 years ago. The very purpose of proceeding ex parte to decide the suit at an early date has been frustrated by lapse of time. The plaintiff had even accepted the costs through his counsel. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to take a very strict view of the matter and interfere with the order passed by the court below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C. P. C. by this Court. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.
(3.) THE parties are directed to appear before the court below on 12th August, 1996, when the plaintiff will produce a certified copy of this order before the court below. THE matter has already been delayed and it is desired that the court below will proceed with the matter expeditiously. Revision dismissed. .;