GOPAL KADAJI MULAY Vs. SUBHADRABAI SAKHARANJI DHENGEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the Courts have non-suited the petitioner completely eventhough he stated on oath that he was bed-ridden, unable to walk and, therefore, unable to participate in the litigation enunciated against him by his landlord for his eviction. He also supported his contention by examining his family doctor. Examination of a family doctor in a litigation is itself a rare occasion but this was not found as a rare occasion by the two Courts below. The petitioner examined himself and stated on oath that he was unable to attend the Court on the ground of illness, which put him down on his bed. He examined his medical practitioner who has rightly deposed on the basis of his medical papers that he treated him for a period of two months. The Trial Court disbelieved the petitioner and the evidence of the medical officer by reasoning which can not be considered on any standard of appreciation of evidence. The learned Trial Judge held that the doctor has supported the petitioner only for half of the period. The result was that the application of the petitioner (Exh. 1) for setting aside ex-parte decree in Reg. C. S. 69/90 was dismissed by the order dated 8. 7. 91, observing that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for setting aside ex-parte decree.

(2.) IT would have been all right, had this been the approach of the learned Trial Judge but the Appellate Court did not see any other view on facts.

(3.) THUS in this revision application peevish views are brought before me. It is more than well know that the law of sufficient cause as well as condonation of delay has undergone a radical change. No party has any interest in suffering a decree and that too of eviction of the premises in his possession and unless there is absolute cause of negligence, the Courts do not deviate from the basic approach that the law of procedure regulates proceedings before the court with the ultimate object of seeing the decision of contest. What is regulated is the movement of the parties in this context. The Courts have never regarded the law of procedure subservient to the ultimate justice to be administered to the parties before it.