Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) In the restoration application, the notices of the respondents nos. 1/1 to 1/10 have been served, who are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff Kanhaiyalal who obtained decree from the trial court dated 26.10.1994 The respondent no.2- defendant no.4 Chand Kishan in the civil original suit no.255/86 wherein the trial court passed the impugned decree on 26.10.1994 and held that the defendant no.4-respondent no.2 also liable for payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff Kanhaiyalal. The appeal has been preferred only by the UOI and two others and not by respondent no.2 Chand Kishan (defendant no.4), therefore, the defendant no.4 is a formal party in this restoration petition. The record of S.B. Civil First Appeal No.84/1996 was also called today and it appears from the judgment of the trial court that the defendant no.4 did not appear before the trial court and trial court proceeded ex-parte against the defendant no.4, who is respondent no.2 in this restoration application.
(2.) In view of the above reasons, the appellants are exempted from impleading legal representatives of respondent no.2 in this appeal.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on application for restoration of the S.B. Civil First Appeal No.84/96.;