BALRAM Vs. DEVKINANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 27 -3 -2001, passed by m ADJ, Sagar in MA No. 3/2000, affirming the order dated 19 -3 -2000, passed by Civil Judge Class I, Rehli in MJC No. 9/98, defendant/applicants have preferred this revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) FACTS in brief are, plaintiff/non -applicants Devkinandan, Ramesh, Santosh and Kallu instituted C.S. No. 35 -A/93 against the defendant/applicants in the Court of I Civil Judge Class I, Rehli seeking declaration of title on Khasra No. 35 (27/3) area 1.00 acres, village Patnaburg, Tahsil Rehli, District Sagar, Defendant/applicants remained absent on 16 -2 -1998, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte and the judgment -decree ex parte dated 31 -3 -1998 decreeing the suit was pronounced. The defendant/applicants on 24 -8 -1998, filed application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code together with application under section 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay and setting aside the ex parte judgment -decree dated 31 -3 -1998 on the ground that their advocate since was appearing, they did not attend the Court on 16 -2 -1998. The advocate never informed them the progress of the case and their requirement to appear on 16 -2 -1998. Even after passing of judgment -decree dated 31 3 -1998, the advocate did not inform the result of the suit.

(3.) THE Civil Judge in MJC No. 9/98 vide Order dated 23 -3 -2000 held that defendant/applicant failed to show sufficient cause for their non -appearance on 16 -2 -1998. Also they have failed to show sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code within time. Therefore, the Civil Judge dismissed the application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. Being aggrieved the defendant/applicants preferred M.A. No. 3/2000 before the III ADJ, Sagar. Affirming the order aforesaid of Civil Judge in MJC No. 9/98, the Court below dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 27 -3 -2001.