Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This revisional application is at the instance of defendants and is directed against Order No. 84 dated July 3, 2001 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 6050 of 1999 thereby allowing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners on condition that the petitioners will deposit the costs of decree and will further furnish security to the extent of Rs. 2 lakh each within a particular date and will also file written statement by that day. The opposite party filed a suit being Title Suit No. 3513 of 1995 for damages and compensation claiming Rs. 10 lakh on the allegation that due to negligence on the part of the petitioners, two Doctors, he lost his vision. The said suit was decreed ex parte.
(2.) Subsequently, on receiving notice of the proceedings for execution of the said decree, the petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code contending that no summons of the original suit was ever served upon them and as such they could not contest the suit and it was only from the service of notice of execution case that they came to know about the passing of ex parte decree. The aforesaid application gave rise to Misc. Case No. 6050 of 1999.
(3.) The aforesaid application was contested by the opposite parties alleging that summonses were duly served upon the petitioners at their medical college address and they had full knowledge of the decree.;