JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 26.4.2022 passed by respondent No.1 may kindly be set aside consequently allowing the application filed by the petitioners under Order IX rule 7 CPC of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby restoring the appeal and decide the same after hearing the same on merit. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to conduct special audit of Himalayan Educational Society, as ordered by respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.8.2016, annexure P-1 and which was placed before this Hon’ble Court in CMPMO No.34 of 2016. That the status of the petitioners may very kindly be ordered to be restored in the same capacity, as was in 2015.” 2. When this case was listed on 16.09.2025, the following order was passed:- “When this case was taken up for consideration, the Court stands informed that respondent No.4 is dead and steps have not been taken to bring on record the legal representatives of said respondent. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as Mr. Gulshan Sadana was impleaded as a party in his capacity as Treasurer of the Himalayan Educational Society, therefore, there is no necessity to implead his legal representatives and interest of justice would be served in case his name is deleted from the array of respondents as the Himalayan Educational Society is already represented by its Chairman. In the light of the prayer made on behalf of learned Senior Counsel, the name of deceased respondent No.4 is ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents. Heard for some time. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-2. He submitted that it is evident in terms of this order that the case was listed on 15.03.2019, on which date, the matter was not taken up as the Presiding Officer was on official tour. He submitted that thereafter on 18.3.2019, the Presiding Officer ordered that the case be listed after 15.4.2019 and the office listed the case for 27.5.2019. He submitted that for the said date i.e. 27.05.2019 neither the petitioners were served nor their counsel were served. He submitted that thereafter on 18.3.2019, the Presiding Officer ordered that the case be listed after 15.4.2019 and the office listed the case for 27.5.2019. He submitted that for the said date i.e. 27.05.2019 neither the petitioners were served nor their counsel were served. Therefore, the impugned orders which have been passed at their back are per se perverse and further the order subsequently passed by the Authority in terms whereof the application filed by the petitioners for recalling the orders has been dismissed, is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that all these facts can be ascertained from the records of the Authorities and accordingly, learned Additional Advocate General is directed to produce the relevant record of Registrar, Co-operative Society, to ascertain as to whether there was any service upon the petitioners, in person or through counsel for 27.05.2019 or not. List on 18.09.2025, as prayed for.” 3. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has produced the Dispatch Register maintained in the Office of Registrar, Co-operative Societies for the period 14.03.2019 to 25.05.2019. The Court stands apprised that in terms of Entry No.3411 of the said Register, notice was issued to all and other parties appeared accept the Counsel for the petitioners. However, on instructions, learned Additional Advocate General further informed the Court that this Dispatch Register only records the issuance of the notice, but receipt thereof cannot be verified from the said Register. On further query, learned Additional Advocate General further apprised the Court that there is no material available in the Office of Registrar, Co-operative Societies that the notice indeed was served upon the Counsel. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General and learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 5. I have also carefully gone through the impugned order. 5. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that it stood recorded therein, i.e. in Para-8 thereof, that the notice that was issued to the petitioners through Counsel was not received back, yet the Authority dismissed the application filed for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that the order under challenge was a balanced one which did not prejudice either contesting respondents. 6. 6. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This is for the reason that as the order earlier passed by the Authority was an ex parte order and an application was filed by a party seeking re-call thereof, on the ground that the party was not served and for this reason it could not appear, all that the Authority was supposed to decide the application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code was whether the contention of the party that it was not served was borne out from the record or not. 7. In light of the fact that the record did not demonstrate that the petitioners indeed were served through Counsel, obviously the order, in terms whereof, the petitioners were proceeded against ex parte was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Whereas, the Dispatch Register of the Office of Registrar, Co-operative Societies demonstrates that notice was issued to the petitioners through Counsel, but as has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General on instructions there is nothing on record to demonstrate that there indeed was a service of the notice upon the learned Counsel. As observed hereinabove also, this finds mentioned in Para-8 of the impugned order also. 8. In this backdrop, it would have been in the interest of justice had Registrar, Co-operative Societies re-called the ex parte order and heard the matter afresh. Not doing so and dismissing the application simply on the ground that the impugned order was a balanced order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. If the party was proceeded against ex parte wrongly, then the order ought to have been   re-called and the act of the Authority of not doing this, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Accordingly, in light of above observations, this petition is allowed. Order dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure P-8) is set aside, in terms whereof, the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed. Further, order dated 27.05.2019, which is an ex parte order against the petitioners is also set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Registrar, Co- operative Societies, who is directed to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. Parties through Counsel are directed to appear before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies concerned on 15.10.2025. 10. Further, order dated 27.05.2019, which is an ex parte order against the petitioners is also set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Registrar, Co- operative Societies, who is directed to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. Parties through Counsel are directed to appear before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies concerned on 15.10.2025. 10. The petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.