RAMJI DASS Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court by means of which he dismissed First Appeal from Order No. 110 of 1957 and affirmed the order of the Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act LXX of 1950 declining to set aside the ex parte order passed against the present appellant.

(2.) IN order to appreciate and understand the real point in controversy it is desirable to state some of the facts as also the dates relating to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Jiwan Singh, father of respondents Bhupinder Singh, Joginder Singh and Chatra Dev Singh applied to the Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (hereinafter called the Act) as Hissar under Section 11 of the Act. He claimed Rs. 16,000/- from Mahant Ramji Das, the present appellant, on the allegation that he had given his land in Kasur (now in Pakistan) on lease to Raghbir Singh for 10 years of Rs. 7,000/- per annum in January, 1944. The lessee had paid Rs. 20,000/- to Mahant Ramji Das in advance and out of this advance payment Rs. 2,000/were to be adjusted every year towards the lease money, the balance of the annual lease money to be paid in case. For two years the instalments of Rs. 2,000/- per year were duly adjusted. For the balance of Rs. 16,000/- these proceedings were initiated on 9-12-1952. It appears that a day earlier i. e. on 8-12-1952 Raghbir Singh had initiated similar proceedings against Mahant Ramji Das in the Tribunal under the Act at Ferozepur. These proceedings were successfully contested by Ramji Das with the result that on 25-2-1954 proceedings initiated by Raghbir Singh were dismissed. It is common ground that Jiwan Singh claimed to be a transferee of this amount from Raghbir Singh and it was in that capacity that the proceedings in the Hissar Tribunal were initiated by him. Notice in Jiwan Singh's application was issued on 2-2-1953 to the appellant for 14-2-1953. On 3-2-1953 the Tribunal ordered that Mahant Ramji Das had refused to take registered over and this was considered to be sufficient service. On the same date fresh notices were ordered to be issued to Arjun Shah a pro forma respondent in those proceedings for 25-3-1953. On 25-3-1953 the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was on leave and the Reader adjourned the case to 31-3-1953. On 31-3-1953 fresh notices were directed to be sent to the respondents for 7-5-1953. On 7-5-1953 it was found that notices had by oversight not been issued as directed, with the result that it was again ordered that notices should go for 13-6-1953. On 8-5-1953, however, only one registered notice was issued to the pro forma party respondent. On 11-6-1953 the pro forma respondent sent his reply to the Tribunal by post. On 13-6-1953 the Tribunal observed that the pro forma respondent had sent his reply and that the other respondent (Mahant Ramji Das) was absent in spite of service and that, therefore ex parte proceedings be taken. For proof the case was adjourned to 23-6-1953. On the last mentioned date the petitioner Jewan Singh asked for time because his evidence was not ready. The Tribunal adjourned the case to 11-7-1953 for proof and rebuttal. After some more adjournments as ex parte decree was ultimately passed on 13-5-1954. These facts stated before us by Shri J. N. Seth, the learned counsel for the appellant, have not been controverted on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) ON 15-6-1955 an application was filed on behalf of appellant Mahant Ramji Das under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex parte decree but the same was dismissed on 16-7-1953. In the application it was expressly stated that no notice had been received by the petitioner after 31-3-1953 when the Tribunal ordered fresh notices to be issued to the respondents and knowledge of the ex parte decree was stated to have been acquired by him on 19-5-1955 when some claim due to him from a third party was got attached by Jiwan Singh.