The principle of res judicata did not apply to the order directing personal appearance, and the court was not bound to pronounce judgment against the respondent No. 3 for non-appearance.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by Smt. Tara Devi, Balram Prasad Tripathi, Krishna Jiwan Tripathi and Arjun Prasad Tripathi as petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order 14-10-1980 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) passed by learned Munsif Khilalabad. Basti (respondent No. 2) and the order dated 12-11-1980 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) passed by the learned District Judge, Basti (respondent No. 1 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, Smt. Tara Devi (petitioner No. 1) died, and in her place. Balram Prasad Tripathi (petitioner No. 2), Krishnajiwan Tripathi (petitioner No. 3) and Arjun Prasad Tripathi (petitioner No. 4) who were already on record, were substituted as the heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Tara Devi. The said Balram Prasad Tripathi, Krishnajiwan Tripathi and Arjun Prasad Tripathi are hereinafter referred to "as the petitioners".

( 3 ) THE facts relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the writ petition are follows :- it appears that certain properties belonged to one Ramdas Shukla, who was maternal grand father of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioners that after the death of Ramdas Shukla, property devolved upon Smt. Yosoda Devi (daughter in law of the said Ramdas Shukla), who was given a right for her life alone. It is alleged that the said Smt. Yosoda Devi started transacting to transfer the said property, therefore, a suit was filed by the said Smt. Tara Devi and other petitioners for injunction wherein Smt. Yosoda Devi was impleaded as defendant No. 1. It is further alleged that in the meantime, Hari Nam Das Vedandi, respondent No. 3 (defendant No. 2 in the said suit) got a Sarvakari executed in his favour by the said Smt. Yosoda Devi (defendant No. 1) who is now dead.

( 4 ) IT is further alleged in the writ petition that an application No. 5c was moved by the said Smt. Tara Devi and other petitioners to get an interim injunction which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 1-6-1977 whereby Smt. Yosoda Devi was directed not to transfer the land and the respondent No. 3 was directed not to get his name mutated on the basis of Sarvarkari.

( 5 ) IT is further alleged in the writ petition that on 15-12-1977 parties were directed to appear in person on 22-3-1978. Copy of the order dated 15-12-1977 has not been brought on record of this writ petition by the petitioners.

( 6 ) IT appears that thereafter by order dated 20-4-1978, the learned Civil Judge fixed 21-7-1978 for issues and parties personal appearance.

( 7 ) AGAIN, on 21-7-1978 the date was fixed as 23-10-1978.

( 8 ) ON 23-10-1978 the learned Civil Judge passed order fixing 22-1-1979 for issues and parties appearance.

( 9 ) ON 22-1-1979 an application No. 54d was moved by respondent No. 3 (defendant No. 2) in the suit) for adjournment on the ground that he could not appear due to urgent work. The said application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 22-1-1979 on payment of Rs. 40/- as costs, and 20-4-1979 was fixed for issues and parties personal appearance.

( 10 ) ON 20-4-1979 the case could not be taken up, and the next date fixed was 25-7-1979 for issues and parties appearance.

( 11 ) COPIES of the aforesaid orders dated 20-4-1978, 21-7-1978, 23-10-1978, 22-1-1979 and 20-4-1979 have been filed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

( 12 ) ON 25-7-1979, an Application No. 55-C was moved by respondent No. 3 (defendant No. 2 in the suit) on the ground that the statement under Order X, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure of the respondent No. 3 (defendant No. 2 in the suit) should be recorded through his pairokar who was acquainted with the facts of the case. This application was opposed by the said Smt. Tara Devi and the petitioners. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 25-7-1979 held that the said application No. 55-C was no