PRITPAL BHATTI Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1446 and 2457 of 2001 as the same have arisen out of the one order dated 20.2.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). Ambala City.

(2.) THE essential facts to settle the controversy are that Tilak Raj, Plaintiff had filed a suit in the year 1991 for possession of House No. 924/4 by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 7.7.1990 entered into between the parties. The said cases was pending in the Court of Shri S.C. Goyal, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala and was fixed for evidence of the Plaintiff for 6.4.1998. On that day, no evidence of the Plaintiff was present and the case was adjourned to 14.10.1998 with the direction that it was the last opportunity to the Plaintiff to produce his evidence on that day. On 14.10.1998, the case was not listed in the said Court. On enquiry from his counsel, the Plaintiff was informed by the counsel that this case has been transferred to some other Court. On 23.7.1998. the suit in question was transferred by the learned district Judge. Ambala to the Court of Ms. Gurvinder Kaur. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala. When the case was taken up by the transferee Court on 14.10.1998, Defendant did not put in appearance despite notice of transfer of this case having been sent to the Bar Room, Ambala along with the list of cases which were transferred to the transferee Court. The Defendant did not appear when the case was taken up on 14.10.1998 and was proceeded ex parte. The case was posted for the evidence of the Plaintiff on 16.11.1998. Thereafter, the evidence of the Plaintiff was completed on 14.12.1998 and the case was adjourned to 11.1.1999 for arguments. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 28.1.1999 ex parte directing the Plaintiff to deposit Rs. 27,503/ - as the balance consideration or the sale price of the property in dispute. Later on Defendant came to know on 4.2.1999 from resident of his locality, namely, Inderpuri, Ambala City that the suit had been decided against him. Thereafter, he made enquiries and came to know that he was proceeded ex parte and the case had been decided against him on 28.1.1999. Then he moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) praying for setting aside the ex parte order dated 28.1.1999 on the ground that he had not received any notice from the transferee Court for the date fixed and more so his counsel was also not aware about the name of the transferee Court and for that reason, he could not inform him about the transferee Court where he was to appear in the suit. This application was contested by the Plaintiff. The trial court taking into account the pleadings of the parties, accepted the stand of the Defendant and set aside the ex parte order dated 28.1.1999 by making the following observations:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the imposition of the cost in the aforesaid order dated 20.2.2001 passed by the learned trial Judge, the Petitioner -Defendant (Pritpal Bhatti) filed revision Petition No. 1446 of 2001 on the plea that imposition of heavy cost is not only unreasonable but arbitrary and amounts to denial of fair justice to him.