RAM KISHAN YADAV Vs. BALDEO CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is by the defendant and is directed against the order of the Court below dismissing his application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Ex parte decree was passed in a rent suit on 22-8-68. The decree was put in execution and certain properties of the petitioner were sold on 4-7-72. Delivery of possession has been followed, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous case on 2-12-72 on the ground that the summons had not been duly served upon him. The trail court as well as the court of Apeeal below on appeal filed by him have Comparatively held that the summons had been duly served upon the petitioner.

(3.) In this Court Mr. Jagdish Pandey, appearing in support of this pettion, contended that notwithstanding the said findings of fact recorded by the Court below, the ex parte decree is fit to be set aside as it was contrary to the provisions contained in section 49(m) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, which prohibits a court from passing a decree against a Raiyat who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste of backward classes with respect to the sale of his tenure or under tenure right.