JUDGMENT

The only grievance of the petitioner is that after hearing I.A.No.3 of 2025 the court had listed the case on 01.12.2025 for counter and hearing on I.A.No.6 of 2025 and for written statement. But on 01.12.2025, the case was not called and instead orders had been pronounced on I.A.No.3 of 2025 and I.A.No.5 of 2025. It is submitted that the respondents 2 to 4 who had been set ex parte had filed applications for setting aside the ex parte order and they had not been heard in the matter. It is also pointed out that the case was not posted on 01.12.2025 for pronouncing orders on I.A.No.3 of 2025 and I.A.No.5 of 2025. The 1^st respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit, producing the order dated 01.12.2025 as Ext.R1B. The order is an elaborate order. I do not propose to go into the merits of the order. It appears from the proceedings which have been produced as Ext.P6 that there was no posting on 01.12.2025 for pronouncing orders. The court could have posted the case for orders and passed orders. It would appear that the purpose of posting which was hearing on I.A.No.6 of 2025 and for filing of a written statement was also not done on that day and it was mere