MUNNOO AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. CHAMPAKALI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants application in revision directed against orders passed by the court below refusing to set aside an ex parte decree passed against the defendants-applicants. The suit giving rise to this revision was filed by the plaintiffs opposite parties against the defendants applicants for ejectment from certain accommodation.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this Revision are these; the plaintiffs opposite parties filed a suit against the defendants-applicants which was at the relevant time pending before the learned Judge Small Causes Court, Alllahabad. The defendants-applicants put in appearance in the suit and purporting to avail themselves of the benefit under Sec. 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) deposited in court a sum of Rupees 312.00 towards arrears of rent as well as damages claimed in the suit and due up to the date of the deposit at the admitted rate of rent. 20th Nov., 1974 was fixed for the final hearing of the suit. The case was not taken up on that date and in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties, it was adjourned to 15-2-75. Thereafter, it appears that the plaintiffs opposite parties moved an application on 23-11-74 for expediting the hearing of the suit. It appears that the said application was allowed that very day and the court advanced the date of hearing of the suit from 15-2-75 to 27-1-75. The office was directed to inform the learned counsel for the parties. The learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge. Allahabad has observed in his order:-

(3.) It appears that the suit was taken up for hearing on 27-1-75, the altered date, and was heard ex parte in the absence of the defendants or their counsel. Thereafter the suit was decreed ex parte on 8-2-75, on which date the judgment was delivered. On 21-2-75, the applicants moved an application for setting aside of the ex parte decree accompanied by an affidavit in which it was stated that the case was fixed for 15-2-75, on which date, the applicant Nanhey, who was looking after the case on behalf of the applicants reached the Court and contacted his counsel. The applicants counsel consulted the cause list of the Court of that date and found that the case was not amongst the cases listed for disposal on the it date, which set them on inquiry and inspection of the record, which disclosed that the suit had been decided ex parte on 8-2-75 and also that the date which was originally fixed for final hearing, namely, 15-2-75, had been changed to 27-1-75 without any information to the defendants-applicants or their counsel despite a direction given by the Court to the office that the counsel for the 'parties should be informed. The inspection further revealed that the case was heard ex parte on 27-1-75 and it was decreed ex parte on 8-2-75. It was further asserted in the affidavit that the applicants were under the impression that the date fixed in the case was 15-2-75, and they had no information or knowledge of the change in the date made by the Court at the instance of the plaintiffs opposite parties. It was asserted in the affidavit that the applicants were innocent and that the suit had been decreed for no fault or negligence of the applicants, and that they would suffer irreparable loss if under the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, the ex parte decree was not set aside. No counter-affidavit was filed in reply to this affidavit, but an objection appears to have been filed on behalf of 1he plaintiffs opposite parties in which it was asserted that the date had been changed from15-2-75 to 27-1-75 upon the expedite application of the plaintiffs opposite parties of which a copy had been given to the defendants counsel in the early hours of the day on 23-11-74, and the said application was disposed of after lunch interval. Under these circumstances, it was asserted in the objection that there was no necessity of giving any information to the counsel for the defendants. It was also asserted that the application was also liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Sec. 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.