BABLI W/O SURENDRA SINGH Vs. DEVENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The provisions of CPC have been made applicable in the proceedings as cognizable by the Judges Small Cause Courts. Under its proviso, it deals with the situations where an ex parte decree or a review of a judgment would be entertained and carried at the time of its presentation under Section 17. Section 35 of the C.P.C. reads as under :

(2.) The revisionist who is a landlord who has challenged the judgment / order dated 4th March, 2013, by virtue of which, the Provincial Small Cause Courts, while considering the application paper No.3A preferred by the respondent, tenant, under Section 5 of Limitation Act, had allowed the same and consequently, allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C, and thereby, had set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed by the Court dated 21st May, 2012. Though the said judgment has observed that the notices were issued, but, despite of service, the defendant had not appeared and hence, the Court has directed the case to proceed ex parte vide order dated 22nd November, 2011, and same was decreed on 21st May, 2012 alongwith Section 5 application.

(3.) When the respondent learnt about the judgment dated 21st May, 2012, for the first time, on 19th September, 2012, from the Police Station Kankhal, then he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree on 24th September, 2012.