Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J. (Oral) - Bachan Kaur, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 8 filed civil suit No. 161 of 14.06.2003 before the trial Court against the petitioners and respondent No. 9, that was dismissed in default on 03.12.2008. Bachan Kaur, filed an application for restoration of the suit. In the application, it was averred that she was represented by Sh. Sukhjinder Singh Aulakh, Advocate at Mansa, who on that day i.e. 03.12.2008 had some urgent work in court at Mansa and could not come to the trial Court. The plaintiff appeared in the Court and was informed of the date fixed as 12.03.2009 and this date was informed by the plaintiff to her counsel. On 11.03.2009, the plaintiff went to the office of her counsel and asked him to appear in the trial Court on 12.03.2009, but the counsel expressed his inability to conduct the case at Budhlada Court. Therefore, the plaintiff engaged Sh. Sushil Bansal, Advocate at Budhlada in the case.

2. When the counsel appeared in the Court for producing his power of attorney, then the suit was not listed for hearing. On inquiry, it was found that the same was dismissed in default on 03.12.2008, whereas, on that date, the plaintiff had appeared in the Court and was informed of the next date fixed as 12.03.2009. So, it was prayed that the suit may be restored.

3. This application was opposed by the petitioners by filing written reply, thereto, wherein, apart from taking preliminary objections of concealment of facts, it was averred that on 03.12.2008, neither the plaintiff nor her counsel appeared in the trial Court and, as such, due to their absence, the suit was dismissed in default on 03.12.2008. The application has been filed to prolong the proceedings and to harass them. Rest of the averments contained in the application were denied and a prayer for dismissal, thereof, was made.

4. Respondent No.9-Sant Kaur also filed a separate reply and reiterated the averments made by the petitioners in their joint reply. She also made prayer for dismissal, thereof.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to restore the suit? OPA.

2. Whether the application is within limitation? OPA.

3. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR.

4. Relief.”

6. The applicant examined Maghi Singh as AW-1 and closed the evidence, while the respondents examined Dhanna Singhpetitioner No.2, herein, as RW-1 and closed the evidence.

7. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondents (petitioners and respondent No.9, herein) and against the applicant-Bachan Kaur (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos. 1 to 8, herein); issue No.3 in favour of Bachan Kaur and against the petitioners and respondent No.9, herein, and dismissed the application vide order dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure P-3).

8. Aggrieved against the same, Bachan Kaur filed civil appeal No. 52 of 31.05.2012, that was allowed by the Appellate Court, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, vide order dated 19.08.2013 (Annexure P-4).

9. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners, who are defendants Nos. 1 to 3 before the trial Court, have come up in this revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for dismissal of application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, that was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure P-3), and for setting aside the impugned order (Annexure P-4) dated 19.08.2012, whereby, the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, that was filed by Bachan Kaur, was allowed.

10. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused with their assistance.

Learned counsel for the petitioners wrongly contended that the appeal against the impugned order was not maintainable before the Additional District Judge, while on the contrary, it has been enshrined under Order 43 Rule 1 (c) CPC, that an order under Order IX Rule 9 CPC rejecting the application for an order to set as