BISHVVANATH SINGH Vs. UPENDRA MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is against an order dated 3rd May, 1985.

(2.) By the impugned order, the court refused to recall the order of ex-pane hearing dated 2nd May, 1985. 2-5-1985 was the date fixed for hearing. When the case was called for hearing, the defendants did not appear. Hence, the court fixed the case for ex-parte hearing and examined the witnesses on that date. Subsequently, the defendants appeared and filed a written statement on the same date.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners contends that the court ought to have fixed a date for ex-parte hearing on 2-5-1985. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioners means to say that the court ought not to have proceeded with the ex-parte hearing on 2-5-1985. To this extent he is right. On a perusal of Order IX, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') it is clear that if the defendant does not appear on call, on the date of hearing, the court will fix a date for ex-parte hearing. In other words, the court ought to have fixed the next date for ex-parte hearing of 2-5-1985, which had not been done in this case. It is for this reason that Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code has been enacted. It provides that if on the adjourned dated of hearing the defendant appears and shows good cause the court will recall the order fixing the date for ex-parte hearing.