M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2012 and 2013 of 1981, as both the revisions are directed against the common order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal on 23.4.1981.
(2.) The facts unfolded in the pleadings of the parties are that the revision petitioners, who were minors, had filed a reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the Act) seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of their land through their next friend Daya Chand, in which Daya Chand and his three major sons were also interested. On the statement made by the counsel for the petitioners dismissed the reference with costs under Order 9, Rule 8 CPC because it was pleaded by their counsel that he had no instructions from them and that he did not have any money to pay the costs imposed on the claimants on the previous date of hearing. Thereafter, an application was filed by Daya Chand and others including the present petitioners on 17.10.1978 under Order 9, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the order dated 23.9.1978 and restoration of the reference under Sec. 18 of the Act. This application was dismissed on 18.5.1979 on the statement of the learned counsel for all the claimants who appeared before the learned Additional District Judge that he did not wish to press the application. The statement of the learned counsel was thumb marked by Daya Chand.
(3.) Thereafter, Balbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh petitioners in Civil Revision No. 2012 of 1981 and Balwan Singh and Angrez Singh petitioners in Civil Revision No. 2013 of 1981 filed applications for setting aside the order dated 18.5.1979 and requested for restoration of the application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC. All the petitioner by now have become major, the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal dismissed their applications with a common order in the following words: - "The question to be decided in this case, however, is as to whether the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, was bound to comply with the provisions of Order 23 Rules 1(1) and (2) CPC before he passed the order of dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for Daya Chand and others. In my considered opinion while withdrawing the application under order 9 Rule 9 CPC, the counsel for Daya Chand etc., was not abandoning any suit or claim of the minor petitioners. Before dismissing the application under order 9 Rule 9 CPC, the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal was not bound to comply with the provisions of Order 23 Rules 1(1) and (2) CPC. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that there is no illegally in the impugned order dated 18.5.1979. It thus could not be legitimately argued that the petitioners who were minors at that time had suffered on account of any wrong act of the Court. The present petitions for the restoration of the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.5.1979 are not maintainable on the alleged plea that the court was bound to comply with the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(1) and (2) CPC before dismissing that application as withdrawn. It was also pleaded in the petitions that Daya Chand, the next friend of the petitioners was grossly negligent in prosecuting the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. Even it for the sake of argument, it is conceded that Daya Chand was negligent in prosecuting that application which he had moved of his own behalf as well as on behalf of his sons (major and minors), even then that does not mean that the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. is liable to be restored.";