MALI RAM MAHABIR PRASAD Vs. SHANTI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision application is directed against the order dated 24-9-1990 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1989 by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, by which he has affirmed the order dated 29-4-1989 passed by the Munsif, East Muzaffarpur, whereby he had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for recalling or setting aside the ex parte decree.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the opposite parties had filed Eviction suit No. 1 of 1987 for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. The suit was filed on 6-1-1987 on the ground of personal necessity under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' only). Pursuant to the filing of the suit, summonses were issued fixing 20-1-1987 for the appearance of the defendant-petitioner. On 20-1-87 i. e. the date fixed for appearance of the defendant, the non-gazetted employees went on strike completely jeopardising the functioning of the Court. The strike continued for about a month i. e. up to 21-2-87. It is apparent from the order-sheet of the suit that because of the said strike the case was not taken up on 20-1-87. The records of the case were thereafter placed for the first time before the learned Munsif only on 10-3-1987. From the ordersheet it is also clear that no judicial order was passed adjourning the case to 10-3-1987. Still the plaintiff appeared on this date and orders were passed for passing ex parte decree of eviction on the ground that the defendant had failed to appear. Accordingly, on 13-3-1987 an ex parte order of eviction was passed and the suit was decreed. The petitioner having learnt about the said ex parte decree, filed an application for setting aside the same.

(3.) On rejection of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner preferred the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 22 of 1989 giving rise to the impugned order. The appellate court has dismissed the appeal by holding that the petitioner has miserably failed to make out any case of reasonable cause in order to get the decree set aside. According to learned lower appellate court it was a well known fact that even during the period of strike, the courts used to sit either at Ijlas or in chambers and used to give adjourned dates in the cases pending before them. He has further held that the petitioner could have easily ascertained the date by making little effort of inspecting the records and since it was not done, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed by her,