DHARAM PAL KUMRA Vs. SATWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's revision against the order of Subordinate Judge III Class, Ludhiana, dated 29th of July, 1978, turning down the prayer of the counsel for the plaintiff to proceed with the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 15th of February, 1977, and another application for amendment of the same filed by the defendant-respondent before the trial Court.

(2.) Since the order of the trial Judge is very cryptic, it will be worth-while to notice some of the facts for the decision of this revision. By ex parte judgment and decree dated 29th of July, 1977, a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant by the trial Court. The defendant-respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was allowed by the trial Court and that order as maintained by this Court with the result that the ex parte order stood set aside and the trial Court was to proceed from the stage of the suit at which the defendant had failed to appear. The stage at which he had failed to appear at that time was the date for arguments fixed for consideration of his application for amendment of the application for setting aside the ex parte order, which had admittedly been passed on 15th of February, 1977. As a result of the acceptance of the application to set aside ex parte decree, the parties were relegated to the stage of hearing of arguments on the application for amendment of the earlier application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 15th of February, 1977. Instead of doing this, what the trial Court has done is that without hearing the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 15th of February, 1977, which was filed by the defendant on 17th March, 1977, and without considering his application for amendment of that application, filed on 15th of April, 1977, he has allowed the defendant to put in the written statement which stage could arise only if the trial Court had allowed the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 15th of February, 1977.

(3.) What I find is that the trial Court has failed in its duty to decide the application dated 17th of March, 1977, filed by the defendant to set aside the ex parte order dated 15th of February, 1977, and also in not deciding the application dated 15th of April, 1977, for amendment of the application dated 17th of March, 1977, to set aside the proceedings dated 15th of February, 1977. He seems to have wholly misunderstood the order of setting aside the final ex parte decree passed on 29th of July, 1977. Whenever an ex parte order or decree is set aside and if a revision is brought to this Court against that order and that is dismissed, it is always stated that now the Court will proceed on merits, that is, in accordance with law, further meaning thereby from the stage at which the case stood at the time of the passing of the ex parte order or decree. All other previous proceedings do not stand brushed aside and as such could not have been ignored by the trial Court.