VYANKATRAO KHUSHALRAO SAWARKAR Vs. PANDURANG JANBAJI GURAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for consideration in this revision application is whether ex parte decree passed by the Court of Small Causes merges in the order passed by the High Court summarily dismissing a revision application filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) Non-applicant No. 1 had filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur against the Applicant and non-applicant No. 2 for ejectment and recovery of rent. The defendant in the suit did not appear and hence an ex parte decree was passed against both of them on 2nd October, 1975. The applicant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him. He also preferred a revision application in this Court under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. That revision application was dismissed summarily by this Court. The applicant, therefore, proceeded with his application before the trial Court for setting aside the ex parte decree. One of the contentions raised by non- applicant No. 1 plaintiff for resisting this application was that the application for setting aside ex parte decree was not tenable in view of rejection of the revision application of the applicant by this Court. The question whether the said application for setting aside ex parte decree was tenable in view of the above said contention of non-applicant No. 1 was taken up as a preliminary issue by the trial Court. It held that the ex parte decree which had been passed by it was confirmed by the dismissal of the revision application by this Court. In this view of the matter the trial Court rejected the application of the applicant for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.

(3.) On behalf of the applicant Mr. Sontakkey submitted that the view taken by the learned trial Judge to the effect that the decree of the trial Court was confirmed by this Court when it dismissed the revision application, is not correct, According to Mr. Sontakkey, since the revision application was summarily rejected, it could not be said that the decree of the trial Court had merged in the order passed by this Court in revision.