HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL REVISION No. - 31 of 2019 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Sri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Abhishek Vishvakarma, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Vijay Lakshmi Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Under challenge is the order dated 04.02.2019 whereby an application moved by the revisionist purporting to be under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. has been rejected. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The notices were issued and it is the categoric case of the revisionist that the notice were not served. It is also urged that initially after the notices were issued, the matter was pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lucknow whereas vide order dated 16.02.2017, the said suit was transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 23, Lucknow. It is urged that after the said transfer, the revisionist should have been granted an opportunity and a notice in terms of Rule 89-A of General Rules Civil which was not done and there was no means for the revisionist to know that the matter had transferred to a different court. It is also urged that only 09.01.2018, the Trial Court proceeded ex-parte Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Adnan Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ms. Vijay Lakshmi Singh, Saryu Prasad Tiwari, Vijay Lakshmi Singh Amit Mishra .....Revisionist(s) Sanjeev Agarwal .....Opposite Party(s) against the revisionist. As soon as the revisionist came to know of the order, he had moved an application on 23.03.2018 which has been rejected on technical grounds vide order dated 04.02.2019. It is thus urged that where technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, it is the cause of substantial justice which must prevail and in the given circumstances, the said order dated 04.02.2019 deserves to be set aside and an opportunity of hearing be granted to the revisionist. Sri Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist undertakes to cooperate in an early hearing of the proceedings and will not seek any unnecessary adjournments. Sri Abhishek Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly submitted that it is the cause of substantial justice which must be preferred and keeping in line with the aforesaid, he submits that even though the report of the process server, which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2, clearly indicates that the revisionist had read the summons which were offered to him and thereafter refused to receive it is a clear indication of his dilatory tactics and moreover, since he had not put in appearance right from the inception, the plea sought to be raised regarding want of compliance of a Rule 89-A of the General Rules Civil also does not come to the aid of the revisionist and in the given circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly passed an order which otherwise does not require any interference. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and also noticing the fact that since the revisionist had not put in appearance and though the application under Order 9 Rule 7 was moved at a later stage, however, considering the fact that as far as possible, the matters be decided on merits and since the learned counsel for the revisionist has also offered to cooperate in early hearing, accordingly, taking a lenient view, the impugned order dated 04.02.2019 is set aside on a cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid by the revisionist to the private respondents within a period of two weeks from today, in case if the said amount is so paid, the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the revisionist shall stand allowed. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 19th November, 2025 CLRE No. 31 of 2019 2 and the revisionist shall file his written statement within a further period of three weeks from the date the parties appear before the Trial court and the Trial court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously. In case if the revisionist fails to file written statement or cooperate in early hearing, it will be open for the Trial Court to proceed with the mater passing appropriate orders including appropriate costs. It is also made clear that none of the parties shall be entitled for adjournments except in exceptional circumstances to be accompanied by appropriate costs. With the aforesaid observations, the present Civil Revision is allowed. The order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 23, Lucknow in R.S. No. 1522 of 2022 shall stand set aside subject to the compliance of deposit of cost as aforesaid. November 4, 2025 Asheesh CLRE No. 31 of 2019 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench