BASANT LAL Vs. MT CHIRANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has arisen in this application for revision is whether a civil Court to which an issue has been sent by the Revenue Court for decision under Section 271, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, and which has decided that issue ex parte has any jurisdiction to entertain an application for the setting aside of the ex parte decision and to decide the issue on its merits. The facts are fully given in the order of the learned Munsif. He has come to the conclusion that the civil Court has jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 141, Civil P.C., and Order 9, Schedule 1.

(2.) It has been argued for the applicant by Mr. P.M.L. Verma that Section 141 has no application, and he has cited the cases of Thakur Prasad v. Fakirullah (1895) 17 All. 106. In this case their Lordships of the Privy Council held that this section of the Civil Procedure Code, or rather the equivalent section of the old Code, had no application to execution proceedings, so that there is no real analogy between that and the present case. My attention has however been called to the remarks of their Lordships in that judgment on p. Ill in which they say:

(3.) In the case of Sarat Chandra Bose v. Bisweswar Mitra a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in discussing the above case interpreted the expression "so forth" as meaning proceedings ejusdem generis and the expression "original matters" as