SWAMI NATH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this petition we not material but the short and important question that arises for consideration is whether the Deputy Director Consolidation was justified in deciding the petitioner's revision ex parte. An application for restoration filed on the same day failed on the ground that it amounted to review of the order which was not provided under law.

(2.) OBJECTION filed by the petitioners claiming to be sole tenure-holders of the Khata in dispute was allowed by the Consolidation Officer. The opposite party (since deceased) succeeded in appeal against which the revision filed by the petitioners was decided ex parte on 2-7-1970 on the ground that the court cannot wait indefinitely.

(3.) THE default, if any, in this case was of the counsel. THE Deputy Director Consolidation failed to distinguish between the absence or neglect of party and the delay in reaching of a counsel. THE matter is a flimsy ground for proceeding ex parte unless the court comes to the conclusion that the counsel is deliberately avoiding coming to the court. Even in such cases it would be reasonable to give an opportunity to engage another lawyer. And the extreme step of passing an ex parte order should be undertaken only as a last resort.