MAHAVEER SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 4.2.1994 (annexure -3 to the petition). I have heard Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner which was decreed ex -parte on 11.12.1989. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex -parte decree which was rejected on 18.7.1992 and the revision against the said order was dismissed on 15.3.1993 and the writ petition against the revisional order was dismissed on 23.4.1993. Thereafter the petitioner filed a Civil Revision alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act against the ex -parte decree dated 11.12.1989. By the impugned order the application for condonation of delay has been rejected. Aggrieved this petition has been filed in this Court.

(2.) ON the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the delay in filing the revision should have been condoned and hence the impugned order is arbitrary. Admittedly the petitioner was earlier pursuing (sic) remedy under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. but he had also another remedy of directly challenging the ex -parte decree and he did so after the order under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. became final. The court below should have condoned the delay.