SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) DESPITE the fact that this case has been on the regular Board of this Court for a number of days and it was called on various occasions, the learned counsel for the respondents did not appear. Learned counsel for the petitioner required to serve a notice of date of hearing upon the opposite counsel which he was kind enough to do vide his letter dated 25.4.2001. Despite that nobody appears for the respondents and still in the interest of justice, vide orders dated 26.4.2001, the matter was adjourned to 30.4.2001.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed a suit against defendant for possession of land measuring 7 Kanals 9 Marlas. It was stated that petitioner-society had taken the land on lease from the plaintiffs' father for a period of five years and after the extended period of lease, the period ended in November, 1976 but the society had failed to hand over its possession. In the said suit, the defendants were served but they failed to appear before the Court in furtherance to the notice served upon them. Consequently, the trial Court proceeded ex parte against the defendants and after permitting the plaintiffs to lead evidence passed ex parte decree on 11.5.1982. Defendants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. The learned trial Court framed issues and even permitted the parties to lead evidence and ultimately dismissed the application filed by the defendants vide its order dated 6.11.1982. The appeal preferred by the said society was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide its judgment and order dated 7.2.1983 giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition in the year 1983.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner while relying upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Firm Ganesh Traders Bombay v. M/s. Rohida Industries, 1998(4) RCR(Civil) 257 contended that under the provisions of Order 5 Rule 6 CPC a reasonable time is to be given to a party to appear before the Court and as no adequate time was given, the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside and the Courts below had fallen in error in dismissing the application and appeal preferred by the present petitioner.;