- (1.) I have heard Shri N. K. Joshi appearing for the petitioner and Shri M. M. Ranjan counsel for the non-petitioners.
(2.) SO far as the matter regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it rests settled by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors. (l) that this provision would have no application where the hearing has been completed and the case is fixed for pronouncing judgment. The Addl. Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur has however, exercised powers under Sec. 151, CPC following the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2 ). It is needless to go into the question whether in a situation like the present, it could be said that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is saved by Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the fact that the Presiding Officer who heard the arguments in the suit has since been transferred and consequently, the matter would be heard again by the successor Presiding Officer. The stage of simply delivering the judgment has gone and re-hearing the argument is involved. At such a relegated stage, an application under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC is maintainable, and the successor Presiding Officer will decide it on its merits. In view of the above and with the above observations, this revision petition is partly allowed only to this extent that the successor Presiding Officer will decide the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 9, (sic O. 9 R. 7) CPC on its merits. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. .;