SITABAI Vs. NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These revision petitions arise from the common judgment and order dated 8.12.1993 passed by the Civil Judge. Raichur, in Misc. Appeal No. 9/93 and 27/91 dismissing both the Appeals. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9/93 and has arisen from the order of the trial Court dated 11.2.1993 passed by Munsiff, Lingasurgur in Misc. Case No. 292, dismissing the revision petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.3.1998 passed in O.S. No. 10/88 while Misc Appeal No. 27/91 had arisen from order dated 18.9.1991 passed by Musif Lingasugur, in Misc. Case No. Nil of 1991 rejecting revisionist Petitioners application Under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. read with Sec. 151, Civil Procedure Code. of setting aside ex parte decree dated 30.3.1998 which miscellaneous case has been filed along with application under Sec. 5 of the limitation act. The appeal Misc. appeal No. 9 of 93 and No. 27/91 have been dismissed by Civil Judge, Raichur by one common judgment and order dated 8.12.1993.

(2.) Original suit No. 10/88 had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declarative decree and decree for possession. The suit was ex parte decreed against the revisionist-defendant (in both the revisions) by ex parte decree dated 30.3.1998. The case of the revisionist-applicant has been that he had no knowledge of the suit or the decree passed therein. He got the information and knowledge of the ex parte decree only on 30.7.1991. Applicant's case has been that the revisionist-applicant had filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff, Sindhanur, which was also numbered as OS No. 10/88 in the Court of Musiff. Sindhanur. In that suit, the present respondent filed an application for dismissed of the suit on the ground of Sec. 11 Civil Procedure Code. alleging that present respondents suit OS 10/88 of in the Court of Munsiff Lingasugur has been decreed and it was then and than only in July 30.1991, the revisionist came to know of the decree passed in the suit. So he prayed that he had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit filed in the Munsiff dismissed that application after having opined and observed that there is nothing on record to count the period of limitation. On 29.7.1991 petitioner has come to know of the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 10/88 on the file of this Court (Munsiff, Lingasugur). It was asserted in the application that the application that the application was within time. The Court below observed that the certified coy of the judgment and ex parte decree in suit No. OS 10/88 passed by the Munsiff, Lingasugur has not been produced as to show on what date the judgment and decree was passed. It further observed that the petitioner should have produced the certified coy. Sufficient opportunity was given to him to file the certified copy which has not been produced. On that basis, he had rejected the application. Form that judgment of Munsiff, Lingasugur, the petitioner filed the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 27/91. It may be mentioned here that during the pungency of the appeal No. 27/91, the revisionist petitioner moved a second application on 29.10.1991. The learned Munsiff rejected that second application holding that the second application (Mis. Case No. 2/91) was not maintainable in law, in view of the order passed on the previous application. More over, as appeal is pending against the order passed in first application, held that second application which was numbered as Miscellaneous case No. 2/92 to be not maintainable. It also held that the second application was also barred by four months from the date of knowledge and rejected the same. From the order dated 11.2.1993 passed by the Munsiff in Miscellaneous case No. 2/92, the defendant petitioner filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9/93. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by the learned Civil Judge by a common judgment and I think it proper to dispose of both the revisions by one common judgment.

(3.) I have heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the revisionist- petitioner and Sri S.G. Bhat learned Counsel for the respondents.