Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 15.02.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC has been rejected.
(2.) THE respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Champa Lal, who filed a written statement; however, the said Champa Lal died during the pendency of the suit and an application under Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC was filed by respondent -plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3; the legal representatives of Champa Lal i.e. Gopi, Smt. Chanda and Mangli were taken on record; however, it appears that Gopi also died and, therefore, another application under Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC was filed for bringing on record the legal representatives of Gopi; the notices of the application were issued to the proposed legal representatives; by order dated 28.05.2013 the trial court noticed that the notices sent by registered post acknowledgment due have been received back with the endorsement "refused" and took the service as complete and directed ex parte proceedings against the legal representatives of deceased Champa Lal and directed recording of ex parte evidence of the plaintiffs. The petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC on 09.09.2013 with the averments that the suit had been rejected on 09.08.2011, restoration whereof was not informed to the applicant and when inquiry was made, it was informed that on 28.05.2013, based on the notices issued on 12.10.2012, ex parte proceedings have been initiated; the applicant was not available on 11.10.2012 and for the subsequent date he did not receive any summon and, therefore, the order proceeding ex parte may be set aside.
(3.) THE application was opposed by the plaintiffs.;