KHELENDRA CH. ROY AND ANR. Vs. PITAMBAR CHETRY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of title and possession and partition. The first revision petitioner and the second respondent filed an application to get themselves impleaded as supplemental defendants under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. The application was allowed. They did not file written statement. Ultimately an ex-parte decree was passed. Thereafter, two revision petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure and under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure seeking to implead second revision petitioner and to set aside the ex-parte decree. The second respondent herein did not file any application. The lower court dismissed the application on two grounds namely, the second revision petitioner who was not a party to the suit is not concerned with the decree and the first revision petitioner did not establish any ground for setting aside ex-parte decree. This order is now challenged.

(2.) The first revision petitioner and the second respondent were originally not parties to the suit. On their application, the lower court passed an order directing them to be impleaded in the suit. The second revision petitioner never approached the lower court for impleadment before the Court passed the decree. Hence, he cannot seek to get himself impleaded at this stage or to have the ex-parte decree set aside.

(3.) It was on 10.11.1981 that the lower court allowed the application filed by the first revision petitioner and the second respondent for impleadment. On that day the court directed that steps to be taken by 14.12.1981. The order evidently refers to the steps to be taken by the plaintiff to amend the plaint but the plaintiff did not take steps. On 14.12.1981 the court directed the supplemental defendants to furnish their proper addresses and adjourned the case to 21.1.1982 for filing written statement.They did not file written statement The court adjourned the suit to 12.2.1982 for ex-parte hearing and ultimately on 3.3.1982 the suit was decreed. It is significant to note that the court did not direct summons to be issued to supplemental defendants. The court also did not direct copy of the amended plaint to be served on these defendants to enable them to file written statement. It was without taking these mandatory steps that the Court decreed the suit ex-parte.