POONAM SINGH Vs. PURAN LAL V CHOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision application is directed against the order dated 11.3.99 passed by District Judge, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No: 47/98, whereby he has dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 3.9.98 passed by Munsif, Dhanbad in Misc. Case no.21 /98 rejecting the petitioner 's application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C.

(2.) PLAINTIFF /Opposite party instituted Title (Eviction) suit No. 66/93 of the Court of Munsif, Dhanbad praying for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of non -payment of rent. Summons of the suit was issued by the Trial Court which was received by the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner appeared by filing Vakalatnama but neither filed written statement nor contested the suit. The court below ultimately decreed the suit exparte. Petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the decree on the ground inter -alia that she was residing at Punjab with her mother -in -law, and she neither appeared in the suit nor she has filed any vakalatnama or hazri whatsoever. It is further alleged that on account of differences with her 'husband she had gone to stay at Punjab with her mother -in -law. When the differences with her husband was sorted out and settled, she came back. Thereupon her husband informed the petitioner that the opposite party instituted a suit for eviction. It is contended that the petitioner thereupon made enquiries and learnt that the opposite party obtained exparte decree against her. The application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was registered as Misc. Case no. 21/98 of the Court of Munsif, Dhanbad. The opposite party appeared and opposed the said application on various grounds. The Trial Court ultimately rejected the application holding that the petitioner failed to prove sufficient cause for non appearance. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 47/98 which was dismissed by the District Judge, Dhanbad by the impugned order.

(3.) ON the other hand Mr. Devi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party submitted that husband of the petitioner appeared by filing vakalatnama as power of Attorney holder and he took as many as 17 adjournments for filing written statement and ultimately when no written statement was filed the court passed the decree. Learned counsel submitted that it cannot be believed that the petitioner had no notice or knowledge about the decree and therefore in such circumstances the decree cannot be setaside. Learned counsel also produced before me copy of the objection filed by the husband of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. stating inter -alia that the petitioner was informed time and again about the suit but she did not want to contest the suit.