R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) SINCE the learned members of the Bar are abstaining from work, Mr. D.D. Sharma, husband of petitioner has appeared before this Court to argue the case
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.5.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 4, Jaipur, whereby an application filed by her under Order 8 Rule 1 and Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected by the learned Magistrate. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction and for seeking a direction to demolish half -constructed house of the petitioner. After filing of the suit, notice was issued. However, according to the petitioner, notice was never served upon her, as the notice was served at the half -constructed house in which she was not living. But taking the service of notice to be complete, by order dated 30.5.2009, the learned Magistrate proceeded ex -parte against the petitioner and fixed the case on 7.7.2009. On 7.7.2009, two advocates claiming to be the advocates of the petitioner appeared before the court and submitted their Vakalatnama. The advocates also filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on 15.7.2009 for setting aside the ex -parte proceedings. The said application was allowed by/the order dated 18.7.2009 and the ex -parte proceedings were set aside. However, despite the setting aside of the ex -parte proceedings, no reply was filed by the petitioner till 10.2.2010. Therefore, the learned Magistrate closed the right of filing reply on the said date. During the course of the trial, the plaintiffs were examined. According to the petitioner, the petitioner did not know about the existence of the suit till 22.7.2013. Therefore, she claims that she engaged services of another counsel and filed an application before the learned Magistrate for giving her an opportunity to file reply to the suit. However, by order dated 7.5.2014, the said application has been rejected. Hence, this petition before this court.
(3.) MR . D.D. Sharma, the petitioner's husband, has pleaded the case. According to him, the petitioner had no idea that a civil suit had been filed against her till 20.7.2013. Secondly, according to him, the Vakalatnama submitted by two counsel namely Ranveer Singh Bhati and Jagdish Narayan Sharma dated 7.7.2009 do not bear the petitioner's signatures. Moreover, even the application filed by two counsels on 15.7.2009 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex -parte proceedings does not bear the petitioner's signature. In fact, according to Mr. Sharma, these signatures are forged. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner had no knowledge about the civil suit. Thus, the petitioner should be given the right to file her reply to the suit. Lastly, in case, she is not permitted to file the reply, a grave injustice would be caused to her. Therefore, the impugned order dated 7.5.2014 deserves to be set aside.;