RAMCHANDRA MAHADEO SURYAVANSHI Vs. DADU NANA SURYAVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri R. V. More, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri N. D. Humbalkar, learned Counsel for Respondent no. 2-Original Plaintiff.

(2.) THE present proceeding arises out of a suit filed in the year 1967 bearing No. 184 of 1967. The present petitioner was defendant in that suit and the respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit for possession of the suit property. That suit was decided ex pane on 30th June 1976. In order to set aside the ex parte decree, Misc. Application No, 31 of 1976 was filed. This Misc Application No. 31 of 1976 for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed for default. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal on account of default, a writ petition was filed by the present petitioner, which obviously was not entertained by the High Court, because the proper remedy was to file an application for setting aside the order of dismissal on account of default in Misc. Application No. 31 of 1976. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 10 of 1980 on 21st February 1980 under Section 151, C. P. C. , which Application was also dismissed by the Court on 6th February 1991 It is this order, which is subject matter of challenge in this Revision Application.

(3.) THE Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for disbelieving the story of the present petitioner for his absence on 3rd August, 1979. Normally, this Court does interfere in a matter where an ex parte decree is passed, because it is always desirable to fight on merits. In this matter, i find that the ex parte decree for possession was executed way back in 1976 and the decree-holder is in possession since 1976 and the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condonation of delay under Section 151, c. P. C. were not sufficient and the Trial Court rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. I see no error of jurisdiction or any material irregularity in the impugned order.