SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.D.Ojha, learned counsel for the revisionist, at length and in detail.

(2.) To assail the decree of ejectment passed against the defendant-revisionist, Sri Ojha has made following two submissions :-

(3.) With regard to ground (a) regarding lack of opportunity, there is no material before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the decree was passed ex parte and the defendant-revisionist did not have the opportunity of producing his evidence as alleged. It will be relevant to point out that the revisionist has not even cared to make any assertion on oath before this Court complaining about the lack of opportunity of the fact that the decree was passed ex parte. It has been argued that the defendant was deprived of opportunity of hearing under the bona fide belief and the impression conveyed to him by his local counsel that the case would be transferred to some court other than the court which passed the decree. In the absence of any material before this Court in the shape of either statement of the defendant-revisionist on oath, or any affidavit or certificate from the local counsel certifying that the alleged impression was conveyed by him to the defendant-revisionist, it is not possible to uphold this plea. In any event, if the decree was passed ex parte then the revisionist would have applied to the court below for setting aside the same apprising the court below of the cause for his absence on the date of hearing. Indisputably, the defendant did not do so. The first submission is, therefore, rejected.