- (1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 1st October, 2008 whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur granted the respondents leave to defend the suit.
(2.) Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that one suit came to be filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 37 Rule 4 of CPC before the learned Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur wherein the respondents-defendants did not appear in the Court despite the service of notice, within ten days, in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that neither the respondents-defendants had appeared in the Court for one year, nor filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act nor gave any satisfactory reason for his non-appearance in the Court for such a long period of one year, yet the Court granted leave to defend the suit sans assigning the cogent reason and thus, the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of law, which deserves to be set aside.
(3.) E-converso, the learned counsel for the respondents took me through the order dated 1st October, 2008 as also the order recorded by the learned Court on 5th December, 2008 and contended that the learned trial Court granted leave to defend the suit with the cost of Rs.1,000/- and the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff received the cost of Rs.1,000/- from the respondents-defendants on 5th December, 2008 which tangibly suggests that he had no grievance against the impugned order whereby leave to defend the suit was granted to the respondents-defendants.;