G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition arises out of an order dated 24. 10. 1994 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby evidence of the petitioners has been closed by him and the original plaintiff (respondent herein) has been directed to produce evidence on the application filed by the petitioners under 0. 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that respondent - M/s Harbans Lal and Bros. filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of the amount allegedly due from the petitioners. An ex parte decree was passed in the said suit on 25. 2. 1987. Present petitioners filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the exparte decree. After service of the notice of the application filed by the petitioners for setting aside the exparte decree issues were framed on 27. 9. 1991 and the case was posted for evidence of the petitioners. On 28. 11. 1991, which was the first date for evidence of the petitioners, an adjournment was sought on their behalf, A similar request was made on 23. 1. 1992. On 9. 4. 1992, the case could not be taken up because the lawyers were on strike. On 28. 7. 1992, the case was adjourned because evidence of the applicants was present. Similarly, on various other dates the case was adjourned because evidence of the applicants was not present. On 25. 8. 1993, it was stated that there was a possibility of compromise between the parties. Thereafter the case was fixed on various dates. Sometimes the Presiding Officer was on leave and sometimes the petitioners failed to adduce evidence. Only on 29. 4. 1994 statement of one witness was recorded. The next date of hearing was fixed as 21. 5. 1994. This date was changed on 20. 5. 1994 because the Presiding Officer was to remain on leave on 21. 5. 1994. On 2. 6. 1994, the next date fixed, evidence of the petitioners was not present. The case was adjourned to 22. 7. 1994. However, on that date the Presiding Officer was on special casual leave and the case was fixed for 17. 8. 1994 for evidence of the applicants-petitioners. This order was recorded by the Reader of the Court and on the next date evidence of the petitioners was closed. Notice of this revision petition was given to the respondent, but nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
(3.) I have heard Shri Sarwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case.;