S. K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against an order dated 28th April, 1987, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Mathura, dismissing the revision application of the petitioner and upholding the order of the trial court refusing to set aside an ex-parte decree against same defendants other than the petitioner.
(2.) Smt. Nirmal Saxena instituted a suit praying therein that a decree for a permanent injunction may be issued restraining the Committee of Management of a certain institution, the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools and the District Inspector of Schools from interfering with her working as the Principal of the institution. In that suit, the petitioner was not arrayed as one of the defendants. She get herself impleaded later on. The suit was decreed ex-parte. The petitioner made an application purporting to be under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the exparte decree. This application was allowed and the decree was set aside as against the petitioner. It is to be remembered that the other defendants did not care to make any application for getting the ex-parte decree set aside as against them. The case of the petitioner before the trial court was that though the other defendant did not make an application before it for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the decree should be set aside as a whole. That prayer, was rejected. The matter was taken in revision where to the petitioner remained unsuccessful.
(3.) The petitioner acquired a right for being appointed as a principal of the institution after lawful termination of the service of the respondent No. 6, Smt. Vimal Saxena. The grievance of the respondent No. 6 in the suit was that the management and the officers had terminated her services unlawfully. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions as contained in the first proviso to Order 9 Rule 13, the prayer for setting aside the ex-parte decree as a whole has to be examined. In my opinion, the proviso will have play only in a situation where a decree precessed on a ground common to all the defendants. As already stated, there was nothing common in between the petitioner and the other defendants. The petitioner had no interest whatsoever in answering the case of the respondent No. 6 that her services had been unlawfully terminated. That music had to be faced by the Management and the officers concerned alone.;