- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Sri S. N Singh, learned Counsel for the peti tioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ certiorari quashing the orders dated 11. 1. 1988 by which the Munsif Allahabad to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order dated 9. 7. 1991 and 18. 11. 19091 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 200 of 1991. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed suit No. 244 of 1987 for specific performance of contract of sale on the basis of an agreement for sale dated 24. 1. 1984 said to have been executed by Smt. Ramkali widow of Shital Singh, during the pendency of O. S. No. 817 of 1983 between the petitioner Jagannath Singh and Ram Kali for permanent injunction in the Court of the Munsif West, Allahabad which was decided in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a compromise on 18. 2. 1984. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that from the copy of the complaint appended as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition it is crystal clear that the suit is mainly against the petitioner (defendant No. 3 in the suit) the petitioner and rest of the defendants are merely proforma defendants. He stated that they have not been impleaded in the revision as well as in the writ petition for this reason.
(3.) IT is submitted that the petitioner in this petition and defendant No. 3 in suit had filed his written statement on 8. 7. 1987 on very first date as paper No. 12 therein. Thereafter on 4. 1. 1988 the following orders was passed in the suit:- "p. O. has gone to Lucknow for official work. Fresh steps for opposite party Nos. 2, 4 to 6 bothways within seven days. Fix 4. 1. 1988 for W. S. and 11. 1. 1988 for issues. " IT appears from the copy of order-sheet appended as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition that on the next date 11. 1. 1988 application No. 15-C filed by the plaintiffs and the following orders was passed on that date :- "case called out. None appears for the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiff is present. 15-C application filed by plaintiff for delaying the service sufficient on defendant Nos. 2, 5, 4, 8 and 6. Seen the report paper No. 14-C. From the perusal of this paper appears that service on the de fendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6 is sufficient and service on defendant Nos. 2 and 4 is not sufficient. So 15-C is allowed accordingly. Issue fresh summons to the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 fixing 23. 3. 88 for W. S. and 30. 3. 88 for issues. Today no W. S. has been filed by defendant Nos. 3, 5 and 6, so suit to proceed ex parte against defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6. Steps bothways within seven days. " It is averred in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that unfortunately the petitioner was ill on that date. But further when the other defendants were not served, he thought no issue could be framed, hence he did not come to the Court on that date. A Medical Certificate in this writ petition is filed in proof as An nexure No. 5 in support of his contention before this Court.;