VANDANA PATEL Vs. PHOOLKALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M. N. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Sri Gulab Chandra, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) After the close of the evidence, the trial court fixed a date for arguments and, on that date, the defendant did not appear. Accordingly, the trial court passed an order in accordance with the provision of Order 17 Rule 2 of the C. P. C. and proceeded ex parte against the defendant and fixed a date for hearing of the matter ex parte. The trial court, thereafter heard the matter and decreed the suit. The defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C. P. C. which was rejected by the trial court on the ground that it was not maintainable, against which, the petitioner filed a revision, which was also dismissed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The trial court rejected the application of the petitioner, as not maintainable on the ground that the court had proceeded against the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 2 of the C. P. C. and had decided the matter on merit, and therefore, only a review application under Section 47 of the C. P. C. could be filed and not an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C. P. C. The revisional court also affirmed the said view.