VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY way of present revision petition challenge is to the order dated 12.1.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala.
(2.) THE petitioners had moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for setting aside ex parte proceedings against them. The said application has been dismissed by holding that there was no sufficient ground for setting aside ex parte proceedings even otherwise it would reopen the matter afresh. The petitioners herein were served in the suit and they put in appearance on 9.9.1996. However, no written statement was filed as the claim in the suit was not contested by the petitioners at that stage. It is further pertinent to mention here that the petitioners had suffered a statement regarding the claim of injunction. In spite of the absence of the petitioners no order was passed for proceeding against them ex parte. However, the case was adjourned for ex parte evidence of the plaintiffs. During the absence of the petitioners, the plaintiff-respondents moved an application for the amendment of the suit by converting the same into the suit for injunction to one for declaration. Notice of the said amendment application was not issued to the petitioners on the presumption that they were duly represented by the counsel, even though after suffering the statement they had not appeared in Court. The learned trial Court observed that the petitioners had not attended the proceedings after 24.1.1997. In spite of this application moved by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 hs been rejected.
(3.) THE impugned order cannot be sustained as it is against the settled law that when the defendants are proceeded ex pate and amendment of the plaint is allowed then the right is to be given to the defendants though ex parte to file the amended written statement by issuing notice of said amendment.;