1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20th April, 2006 passed by 3rd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, in a case titled Ulfat Jan and others Vs. Services Selection Board and others, whereby and where-under application of petitioners-defendants for setting aside the exparte proceedings came to be dismissed.

2. Heard. It appears that plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit before the learned District Judge, Srinagar, for passing a decree of declaration and permanent injunction on the grounds taken in the memo of plaint.

3. Summons came to he issued to defendants. In response defendants-petitioners caused appearance and were directed to file written statement. Defendants-petitioners failed to file written statement and their defence came to be struck-of in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code, hereinafter for short CPC vide order dated 24th May, 1999 and the respondents-plaintiffs were directed to lead evidence. Thereafter, it appears that exparte proceedings came to be drawn against the defendants-petitioners.

4. It appears that on 24th February, 2001, plaintiffs-respondents moved application for permission to amend the plaint which came to be allowed vide order dated 2nd September, 2002. It is profitable to reproduce the operative part of the said judgment herein:-

From the perusal of record, vide order dt. 24.05.1999, the right of defendants to file written statement was closed, as despite a number of opportunities, they have not submitted their written statement, as such I am of the view that in case of amendment, the pleadings are to be amended, but in the instant case since the defendants right to file written statement has already been struck of, therefore, the defendants have no right to file the amended written statement. Put up the main suit on 14-9-02. This application is accordingly disposed of and shall form part of the main file."

5. It appears that plaintiffs were allowed to amend the plaint but the defendants-petitioners were not allowed to file written statement on the ground that their defence was already struck-of.

6. It appears that thereafter again exparte proceedings came to he drawn against the petitioners-defendants but plaintiffs-respondents had not led any evidence in support of the averments contained in the amended plaint in exparte till today.

7. On 13th December, 2003 petitioners-defendants moved application for setting aside exparte proceedings which came to be dismissed vide impugned order.

8. It also appears that interim relief came to be granted subject to the objections of otherside vide order dated 3rd April, 1998 and another interim order came to be passed on 12th October, 2002 wherein the petitioners-defendants were directed to allow the plaintiffs-respondents to continue against their respective posts. It is profitable to reproduce relevant portion of order dated 12th October, 2002 herein:

"Since the order dated 03.04.1998 has not been modified varied or reversed. Therefore, the disbanding of the application from the service will have no force. Accordingly, the non-applicants arc directed to allow the applicants to continue on their respective posts and order dated 11.10.2000 is kepi in abeyance. The application is disposed of and shall form part of the main suit."

9. Petitioners-defendants feeling aggrieved of the order dated 12th October, 2002 filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay before learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar. The condonation application came to be dismissed vide order dated 17th May, 2003 and consequently appeal also came to be dismissed as time barred. But the appellate court observed and held that order dated 3rd April, 1998 was subject to objections of otherside but defendants-petitioners had not filed objections and held that it was proper for the defendants-petitioners to file objections to the said application instead of filing appeal against the order dated 1 2lh October, 2002. It is profitable to reproduce operative part o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document