HAKIM RAFAT HUSSAIN Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 10th March, 1997, passed by the prescribed authority rejecting an applica tion by the petitioner for recalling an earlier order dated 20th January, 1997.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the tenant petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri M. A. Qadeer contends that the ex pane order having been set aside, the evidence taken in pursuance of that order becomes inadmissible. He placed reliance on Mst. Lakshmi Devi v. Roongta and Company and others (AIR 1962 Allahabad 381) in which an exparte decree was set aside and again an ex pane decree was passed relying on the evidence recorded in the earlier ex pane proceedings. It was held that the earlier ex pane decree having been set aside, the par ties become entitled to be relegated back to the stage at which they were absent and could insist that everything which had been done in their absence should be done again in their presence.