Honble SHARMA, J.–Alongwith the suit the plaintiff petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Despite the service of the notice, the defendant non- petitioner did not appear and the trial court issued the temporary injunction the defendant preferred appeal assailing the order of temporary injunction. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the trialcourt observing that the suit could not have been filed against Shri Madhukar Gupta in his personal capacity but it ought to have been filed against the President District Club Bundi. While setting aside the order of the trial court, the appellate court directed the plaintiff to move application for deleting the name of Shri Madhukar Gupta from the plaint. If no such application was filed before December 5, 1996 theappeal filed by Shri Madhukar Gupta stood allowed in toto. Against this order of the appellate court present action for filing the revision has been resorted to.

(2). It appears that Shri Madhukar Gupta who at the relevant time had been the District Collector Bundi did not choose to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bundi and the learned Civil Judge hear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document