L.N.MITTAL - (1.) PARDEEP Kumar by filing this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed order dated 8.8.2009, Annexure P/2 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dabwali and judgment dated 26.9.2009, Annexure P/1 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa.
(2.) THE case has chequered history. Petitioner filed suit against respondent no. 1 Om Parkash and the same was decreed ex parte. Om Parkash, judgment debtor (JD) filed application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The same was dismissed by the trial court. However, in appeal the said application was remanded by the appellate court to the trial court for fresh decision. In the meanwhile, Vijay Kumar respondent no. 2 herein moved application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) alleging that the decree which was passed in favour of the petitioner had been assigned by him to Vijay Kumar respondent no. 2 herein. Accordingly, Vijay Kumar prayed for substitution in place of Pardeep Kumar decree holder. Learned trial court vide order dated 20.10.2007, Annexure R/1 allowed the said application of Vijay Kumar by referring to Order 21 Rule 16 CPC. Mr. SC Gupta, Advocate represented the petitioner DH as well as applicant Vijay Kumar (respondent no. 2 herein) before the trial court when order Annexure R/1 was passed.
(3.) PETITIONER moved application Annexure P/3 for setting aside order dated 20.10.2007 alleging inter alia that no notice of the application moved by Vijay Kumar was received by petitioner DH and the said application was allowed without notice to decree holder although notice was mandatory.;