GANGINA VEERA VENKAMMA Vs. M VENKATARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The all too familiar question whether absence of an advocate is a sufficient cause within the meaning of Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside an ex parte decree arises in this plaintiffs revision petition.

(2.) Civil Procedure Code all through-out its provisions attempts at achieving a delicate balance between the rights and interests of the parties before the Court and at maintaining a proper proportion between the need to hurry justice without burying it. No wonder in this tight rope-walking it falls between the two stools, pleasing none and paining all. Several are the Court decisions interpreting Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. Indeed it is difficult to find any fresh ground upon which to stand. So much has been trampled down by armies of conflicting words. And vet peace has not come to this poor Section of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) The plaintiff in O. S. 30/67 had obtained a decree some time in the year 1973. The decree was for possession and mesne profits. The plaintiff had to work out her declared rights. For that purpose, the plaintiff filed I. A. 831/76 for the appointment of a Commissioner to ascertain the mesne profits. A Commissioner was accordingly appointed but his report was set aside by the Court on some technical ground. Thereupon, a second Commissioner was appointed. This Commissioner, after inquiring into mesne profits filed his report on 5-8-1978 into the Court. The plaintiff-decree-holder filed her objections to this report on 24-8-1978 and four days thereafter the defendant-judgment-debtor filed his objections. After a lapse of four months on 19-12-1978 the Court started hearing arguments of the par-ties. The plaintiff was heard on that day itself. But the defendant was not ready to argue the matter on that day. The Court, therefore, adjourned the matter more than once to enable the defendant to advance his arguments. At every adjourned date the defendant was unready. After the matter thus underwent a few adjournments without the defendant being ready to argue his objections the Court posted the matter to 16-1-1979 finally for the arguments of the defendant. But the Court found that this time it was even worse. Neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared in the Court on that day. What is a Court to do in such a situation? is the Court to hold up its hands in despair and adjourn the matter once again ? I think not. I believe that the Courts are not that helpless. Under all circumstances the Courts should carry on their duty of administering justice. Under no circumstances should they concede power of veto either to parties or their pleaders. In this case the Court, without the defendants presence, ascertained the amount of mesne profits payable by the defendant and passed a final decree against the defendant for Rs. 90,909-84 with interest at 51/2 p. a. To set aside that final decree passed by the Court after so much of protracted litigation the defendant had filed I. A. 191/79 which was allowed by the District Judge, East Godavari. Rajahmundry on 4-8-1979. Aggrieved by that order the plaintiff had filed this C. R. P.