Judgement JUDGMENT:- This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-4-87 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Misc.(J) Case No. 2 of 1987, arising out of Title Suit No. 20/73, dismissing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 24-6-83. 2. The first respondent M/s. Kankaria Tea Company as the owner of Sembari Tea Estate, filed a suit (TS 20/73) in the Court of Asstt. District Judge, Tezpur for declaration of their right, title and interest over an area of land measuring 368 Bighas and for recovery of khas possession. All the defendants entered appearance. Along with the plaint in application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of C.P.C. was also filed praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from erecting houses and digging earth and/or doing any act which may cause damage to the suit land. The Asstt. District Judge granted temporary injunction as prayed for. The defendants filed objection against granting temporary injunction and the Asstt. District Judge after hearing the parties vacated the ad-interim injunction granted earlier. Thereafter, the plaintiff Company filed an appeal before this Court challenging the order of the Asstt. District Judge vacating the an-interim injunction. This appeal was numbered as MA(F)29/74. On 16-9-81 this appeal was dismissed at the time of hearing is not pressed. The case record was sent back and it was received by the Asstt. District Judge on 16-11-81. On receipt of the record, the Asstt. District Judge issued notice to the counsel for the parties. 3. The counsel who appeared earlier in the suit on behalf of the appellant-defendant refused to accept notice on 21-9-82 with the following endorsement. (sic) In spite of the aforesaid endorsement, the Court did not feel it necessary to issue notice to the appellant-defendants and the case was allowed to remain pending till 12-1-1983 without issuing any notice. 4. On 12-1-1983 the case was taken up by the Asstt. District Judge and decided to proceed with the case ex parte observing that no notice need be issued and fixed 4-3-1983 for ex parte hearing. The case was adjourned on several occasions, lastly, on 24-6-83 the Asstt. District Judge recorded the evidence of the plaintiff and decreed the suit ex parte. This was done without the knowledge of the defendants-appellants. District Judge and decided to proceed with the case ex parte observing that no notice need be issued and fixed 4-3-1983 for ex parte hearing. The case was adjourned on several occasions, lastly, on 24-6-83 the Asstt. District Judge recorded the evidence of the plaintiff and decreed the suit ex parte. This was done without the knowledge of the defendants-appellants. Some of the defendants-appellants came to know about the ex parte decree on 1-7-1984 and immediately thereafter on 5-7-84 they filed a petition for restoration of the suit, stating inter alia, that after the disposal of the appeal by this Court, they had no knowledge about the receipt of the case records by the Asstt. District Judge. This Court also did not fix any date for their appearance. Against this petition, the respondents-plaintiffs filed objection. 5. Meanwhile, with the creation of the new Darrang, District, the case was therefore, transferred to the Asstt. District Judge, Darrange. The Assistant District Judge, Darrang by his order dated 30-4-87 rejected the petition for restoration on the ground that the counsel, who was engaged earlier in the suit, was duty bound to inform about the case and he having failed to do so, the appellants must suffer the consequences. The Asstt. District Judge also observed that the situation at Mungaldoi was not such abnormal in 1983 to prevent the appellant from contacting their Advocate at Tezpur. 6. I have heard both sides. Mr. P. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was no negligence of inaction on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the case. The appeal was preferred by the respondent against vacating of injunction order in this Court and the appellants contested the said appeal by engaging their counsel. The appeal was dismissed on 16-9-81 as not pressed and thereafter the Asstt. District Judge received the case records on 16-11-81 and case was allowed to remain there without bringing to the notice of the parties. Only on 1-4-82 about 6/7 notices were issued to the counsel, and thereafter, no step was taken by the Court to inform the defendants. The appeal was dismissed on 16-9-81 as not pressed and thereafter the Asstt. District Judge received the case records on 16-11-81 and case was allowed to remain there without bringing to the notice of the parties. Only on 1-4-82 about 6/7 notices were issued to the counsel, and thereafter, no step was taken by the Court to inform the defendants. It is true that the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are representatives but that does not mean that in all cases service on the counsel amount to service on parties, more so, when the counsel refused to accept the notice stating that he was no longer in the case. When the counsel for the appellants refused to accept the notice it was the duty of the Court below to issue notice to the appellant-defendants. But in the instant case, the Court never informed the appellants-defendants that the Court would take up the case on a particular date. In this regard. In my opinion, the Court below miserably failed to discharge the solemn duty. Moreover, from the manner in which the matter was proceeded, I feel that there was unreasonable haste in giving he ex parte decree. This aspect of the matter is totally overlooked by the Asstt. District Judge passing the impugned order. 7. In view of the above, in my opinion, the ex parte decree passed on 24-6-83 should be set aside and the suit be restored to file. Accordingly, I set aside the said ex parte decree and restore the suit into file, subject to the appellants paying a sum of Rs. 200/- as costs for restoration of the suit. 8. It appears from the records that unnecessarily the case has been delayed because of the wrong steps taken by the Courts below and I, therefore, direct the Asstt. District Judge to dispose of the suit as early as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the case records. The Parties herein through their counsel are directed to appear before the Asstt. District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi on 7-9-92 to take a date. It is stated at the Bar that the defendants-appellants have pot yet filed their written statement. The defendants must file the written statement on or before 21st September, 1982, failing which the suit will again proceed ex parte. 9. District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi on 7-9-92 to take a date. It is stated at the Bar that the defendants-appellants have pot yet filed their written statement. The defendants must file the written statement on or before 21st September, 1982, failing which the suit will again proceed ex parte. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.