SATYAWATI Vs. 10TH ADDL DIST JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act whereunder allowing the revision, an order passed by the trial Court rejecting an application filed by the judgment-debtor under Order IX, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code was set aside and the suit restored for being decided afresh the plaintiff has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the revisional order.

(2.) The facts shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the present case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner had filed a suit being suit No. 31 /85 in the Court of Judge Small Causes seeking ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation which was decreed ex parte against the defendant on 18-4-88. This decree was challenged by the defendant by means of a revision which was filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This revision was initially entertained and admitted but was dismissed for default on 30-10-89. The defendant thereafter unsuccessfully made effort to get the aforesaid order recalled and his application seeking setting aside of the dismissal of the revision was rejected on 14-3-90. It was thereafter that on 28-3-90 the petitioner moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree dated 18-4-88. This application was obviously barred by time.

(3.) The trial Court after considering the relevant material on the record came to the conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out which could justify the condonation of the delay in filing the application. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree could not be deemed to be maintainable in view of the prohibition contained in the explanation added to Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. In view of the dismissal of the revision. Consequently, the trial Court rejected the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 18-4-88. This order was challenged by the defendant before the revisional Court, The revisional Court agreed with the view of the trial Court that the defendant was not entitled to the benefits available under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The revisional Court further recorded a finding that the decree of the trial Court stood merged in the decree passed by the revisional Court and the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 18-4-88 could not be held to be maintainable. In spite of having affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court on the aforesaid questions the revisional Court set aside the order of the trial Court rejecting the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. referred to above simply on the ground that in his view it would be in the interest of justice to do so as in his view the suit deserved to be decided on merits and accordingly expressly stating that the revisional Court was inclined to set aside the order passed by the trial Court while exercising the inherent jurisdiction vesting in the Court, the revision was allowed and setting aside the order dated 6-4-91 the ex parte decree dated 18-4-88 was set aside on the condition of payment of Rs. 200/- as costs within a month, with a further direction that on the payment of the cost the suit shall be restored to its original number and decided after affording full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases.