OMVEER SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE HARIDWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short, but interesting question of law, is involved for consideration in this case.

(2.) THE petitioner herein was a defendant in a civil suit filed by respondent No. 3 plaintiff u/s. 15 of the Provincial Small cause Courts Act, 1887, wherein, respondent No. 3 had sought eviction of the petitioner from the property in question. Even though initially petitioner-defendant had appeared in the said suit, but since long he chose to remain absent, the suit proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and ultimately ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court on 6-5-1993. On 12-5-1993, the decree sheet was drawn up, which as per established practice, procedure and law, contained statement of costs borne by the parties. The operative part of the ex parte judgment dated 6-5-1993, undoubtedly and admittedly did not contain any order or direction with respect to the payment of costs. Even though decree sheet was drawn up based upon the aforesaid judgment on 12-5-1993 and even though it also contained tabular statement with respect to the costs incurred by the respective parties, it did not contain any direction or order about the liability to pay the costs.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the ex parte decree dated 6-5-1993, the petitioner-defendant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. and the Trial Court vide its order dated 11-11-1993 allowed the said application and set aside the ex parte decree subject to the condition of the petitioner-defendant depositing the decretal amount. It is undisputed case of the parties that pursuant to this order, the petitioner defendant had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,490/-, which was, in fact, the decretal amount. Consequent upon the petitioner defendant having deposited the aforesaid amount, he filed an application in the Trial Court for consequential implementation of the order dated 11-11-1993 for setting aside the ex parte decree. In this application, respondent No. 3 plaintiff filed his objection stating therein that the order dated 11-11-1993 could not have been implemented because the petitioner defendant had not deposited the entire decretal amount inasmuch as even though he had deposited Rs. 5490/-, since he had not deposited the costs of the suit as had been reflected in the decree sheet, this amounted to non-compliance of the order dated 11-11-1993. Based upon this objection of respondent No. 3 plaintiff, the learned Trial court vide its order dated 26-12-1993 rejected the petitioner's application for implementation of the order dated 11-11-1993 agreeing with the contention-objection of respondent No. 3 that since the petitioner had failed to deposit the costs of the suit, he had failed to comply with the direction relating to the deposit of the decretal amount vide the Court order dated 11-11-1993. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned District judge, who while dismissing the same vide his order dated 26-2-1994, concurred with the view of the learned Trial Court by holding that, indeed, because of the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount of costs, he had not complied with the direction contained in the Court order' dated 11-11-1993.