The court emphasized the importance of ensuring fair process in trials by examining whether defendants were duly served with summons, thus preserving their right to a fair hearing.

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.237/2017 dated 16.04.2019 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.

2. The respondent herein had originally filed O.S.

No.1153/2009 against the husband of petitioner No.1 herein and her husband expired on 27.11.2011, then she and her son filed their vakalath and the case was posted for the framing of issues. The Learned Judge on the ground of jurisdictional issue had returned the plaint and the same was filed before the present Court. It is the case of the defendants that they are not aware of what is the case number, when the case is filed and no summons were served on them. The Trial Court had posted the matter for judgment though the summons were served on the address of the defendants. Then, they came to know through the advocate who appeared in the earlier case and they have come up with this application. The plaintiff had filed his objections and by way of impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the application stating that the matter is reserved for judgment at this stage, the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC cannot be entertained and that is beyond the scope of Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC. Aggrieved thereby the defendants are before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/

defendants submits that when they were not even aware of the suit and no summons were served and in the matter, they were set exparte and the matter was posted for judgment. The Trial Court ought to have considered the case as it would cause lot of prejudice to the defendants. It is submitted that there is no finding, there is no whisper about the service of summons on the defendants and the order needs to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent submits that it is only delaying tactics. In fact, the summons were served on the defendants and they were waiting till the matter is posted for judgment and at that point of time, they have come up and filed this application. It is submitted that the Trial Court had rightly considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the application as the said application cannot be maintained after the suit is reserved for judgment. It is submitted that no grounds are made out seeking interference with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court.

5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The suit is filed before the Learned Principal Judge Junior Division. In that suit, the father and the husband of the defendant No.1 have contested the matter and during the pendency of the matter, he died and the defendants have filed their vakalath. Thereafter, on the ground of jurisdiction it was transferred to the present Court. It is the case of the defendants that they are not served with the summons. It is the case of the plaintiff that the summons are already been served on the defendants. When an application is filed under Order 7 Rule 9 of CPC, though the suit is reserved for judgment, the Trial Court ought to have considered whether the summons were served on the defendants or not and whether there is any reasonable cause to allow that application. A perusal of impugned order shows that the Trial Court has not done any of that exercise and no finding is given by the Trial Court on that issue. If in case as submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants, no summons are served on them and they are not aware of the pending suit and whatever is the stage of the proceedings, there cannot be any adverse order against them without giving an opportunity to contest. The Trial Court ought to have done exercise on this. If the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the