DEO NAND Vs. ACHAIBER MISIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by a defendant in a pending suit. There are three-defendants in all. Summonses were issued to all of them by the trial court but only two of them put in appearance in the suit. The present applicant remained absent. The court ordered the case to proceed 'ex parte' against him. One of the defendants raised a plea of tenancy rights and an fssue was remitted to the revenue court for decision. The revenue court has sent its decision. When the case was put up before the learned Munsif for hearing the present applicant put in appearance and made an application for setting aside the order directing the case to proceed 'ex parte' against him. His application was not accompanied by an affidavit and the learned Munsif was not satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for his absence on the previous dates. He rejected that petition. Against this order this revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the learned Munsif had no-jurisdiction to reject his petition.

(2.) IN this connection reference may be made to O. 9, R. 7, Civil P. C. , which runs as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel has cited the case -- 'bhagwat Prasad v. Muhammad Shibli', AIR 1922 All 110 (A ). From a perusal of the judgment of that case it appears that the trial court did not seem to have recorded any finding to the effect that the applicant had failed to assign a good cause for his non-appearance. In the circumstances the case is clearly distinguishable from the present one. Moreover this case contains no reference to O. 9, R. 7, Civil P. C. The headnote mentions Order 9 rule 11 although there is no reference even to Order 9, Rule 11 in the body of the judgment.