R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 27.3.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Chhabra, District Baran whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed an application filed by the respondent -plaintiff under Order 9, Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC and has restored the suit to its original number.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Ram Kumar, filed an application under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Debt Recovery Act against the petitioner -defendant for recovery of Rs. 2 Lacs alongwith interest of Rs. 4,000/ -. The petitioner -defendant filed reply to the application and denied the averments made in it. The petitioner specifically raised an objection that the plaintiff is neither a farmer, nor any loan was taken by him for agricultural purposes. During pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff, Ram Kumar, died on 15.7.2012. Thereafter, as nobody appeared on behalf of the plaintiff to contest the suit, by order dated 26.7.2012 the learned trial court dismissed the suit in default. Subsequently, the respondent, Hari Prasad, brother of the deceased -plaintiff, Ram Kumar, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC for restoring the suit to its original number, and an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for taking him on record being legal representative of deceased -plaintiff, Ram Kumar. The petitioner -defendant filed reply to the applications. However, by order dated 27.3.2014 the learned Magistrate allowed the application under Order 9, Rule 4 CPC and directed for filing of the amended cause title. But no specific order with regard to the application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC has been passed. Hence, this petition before this court. Mr. N.K. Singhal, the learned counsel for the petitioner -defendant, has contended that the learned Magistrate dealing with two applications filed by Hari Prasad one under Order 9, Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC, and the other under Order 22, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. While the application under Order 9, Rule 4 CPC has been allowed, no specific order with regard to the application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC has been passed. However, still the learned Magistrate has permitted an amended cause title to be filed thereby implying that he has allowed the application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.;