Sudarshan Pandey and Others vs Kamal Narayan Pandey and Another

Nagendra Rai, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

This revision application is directed against the order passed by the Court below condoning the delay in filing application for restoration of the suit under Order IX, Rule 4 of the CPC and allowing the application under the said provision.

It is an admitted fact that when the suit was called out, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants both were absent and the suit was dismissed. So, it is dismissal of the suit under Order IX, Rule 3 of the CPC and the restoration has to be made under Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Well settled law is that no notice is required to be given to the Defendants while allowing the application under Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The grievance of the Petitioners is that as the application was barred by limitation by three years, the court should have heard the Defendants-Petitioners before allowing the limitation petition.

This Court does not find any substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The Defendants Petitioners are not required to be heard under Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They cannot claim right of hearing on the limitation petition filed for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This apart, the court below on merits has found that this is a case for condonation of delay and it condoned the delay and allowed the application.

Thus, there is no merit in this revision application and the same is accordingly dismissed.